S. T. Joshi to Lovecraft's Critics

[hopfrog]

In a delicious new blog (S. T. Joshi - Blog), S. T. continues his defense of Lovecraft's excellence as an author, a matter of great importance to me. When I insist that Lovecraft's work is excellent, I am usually dismiss'd as an eccentric Lovecraft fanboy. S. T. cannot be so dismiss'd.

"...in my own judgment (derived from reading a fair amount of the great literature in English, Latin, Greek, French, German, and other languages) is that this [ye final paragraph from "The Call of Cthulhu"] is not merely good prose; it is superb prose. I am getting to the point of thinking that anyone who doesn't think Lovecraft a fine prose writer is simply an ignoramus--someone who simply doesn't know anything about prose. It is as if you've put a dunce cap on your head and said to the world, 'I don't know the first thing about good writing.'"

"...I unhesitatingly declare H. P. Lovecraft not merely a good writer but a GREAT writer--great in his management of prose, great in his imaginative scope, great in the philosophical and aesthetic underpinnings of his fiction, and great in the effective construction of a tale that allows it to become so compellingly readable. His influence is now perhaps greater than that of Edgar Allan Poe, and on its purely intrinsic merits his work is superior to that of every writer in the history of weird fiction with the possible exception of Ramsey Campbell."

"I wonder why Lovecraft's detractors don't just give up. Their foolish screeds are so easily refuted that there is really no sport in it anymore. And yet, they seem unable to resist the temptation to reveal their ignorance and prejudice for all the world to see."

My one disagreement with ye above is that I firmly consider Thomas Ligotti weird fiction's finest writer. Lovecraft wrote some bad stories; Ligotti has not.

[qcrisp]

I just read Dunbar's comments. He's illiterate. Apart from anything else, who ever defends Lovecraft by complaining about literary snobs? Dunbar, for one, is in no position to be snobby.

Though I'm broadly in agreement and don't deny Lovecraft's merits, it has to be said Joshi is reaping some of what he's sown.

If pessimism has not always been the default philosophical position of choice for writers of weird tales themselves, it seems readers and critics generally prefer them to be as prejudiced against existence as possible. With Poe and Lovecraft the eagerly repeated legends surrounding their gloomy lives, and their own bleak speculations on existence, provide a side relish to their literary dishes of terror. On the other hand, I suspect that other authors in the classic weird fiction line, such as Blackwood and Machen, would have rankled at being remembered best as master chefs of fright. Not that they would have denied there is sustenance in terror, but neither would they have allowed that terror formed the only recommended diet. They were careful to point out that a sense of profound awe, in one form or another, formed the basis for most weird fiction and that awe can encompass both terror and wonder.

The term “weird tale” is, of course, in itself problematic. Its first usage appears to have been in the title of a collection by Sheridan Le Fanu, "A Stable of Nightmares and Other Weird Tales" but appears to have been first popularised by Lovecraft himself. Interestingly it features in his letters years before the first appearance of the pulp magazine Weird Tales in 1923 and frequent usage in his seminal essay Supernatural Horror in Literature written a few years later. The reason the term is problematic is that, in the sense Lovecraft used it, it is an umbrella term for a series of other terms such as “ghost stories”, “Gothic stories” and “horror stories”. However, it seems clear that he used it to denote tales containing only horrific or terrifying elements as their main focus.

Champions of despair are thus as eagerly sought as ever. It is, to me at least, somewhat horrible to now see contemporary authors of weird fiction competing with one another in the “who-is-the-most-bleak” stakes. By all means turn out tales as morbid and horrifying as the imagination can conceive. But I am not sure I am quite as in sympathy with such authors when they turn from writing fiction to providing the world with philosophical instruction.

Lovecraft believed that the weird tale contended against “a naively insipid idealism which deprecates the aesthetic motive and calls for a didactic literature to 'uplift' the reader toward a suitable degree of smirking optimism.” The key point here is the aesthetic motive, i.e. the requisite artistic treatment of a theme. Philosophy does not enter into it. The most optimistic of men could pen the most terrifying of nightmares, if he were a great enough imaginative artist. Moreover the remarks about didacticism are not applicable, logically, solely to idealism. The most insipid of pessimists could deprecate the aesthetic motive and call for a didactic literature to 'depress' the reader towards a suitable degree of sneering misanthropy.

I am afraid that I must put some of the blame for this confused state of affairs down to Joshi. In his seminal study The Weird Tale (1990), he advanced the proposition that stories of this ilk “offer unique opportunities for philosophical speculation” with each author “trying to convince us of the truth of his vision of the world”. He analyses the work of six masters of the weird tale and advises us as to their respective merits. In order to validate his proposition, Joshi has broadened the narrow definition of Lovecraft's term “weird tale” and incorporates analyses of stories that are non-terrifying (even to the extent of those that induce humorous amusement, as in the case of Dunsany's fine Jorkens tales).

Nevertheless, Joshi is a robust and uncompromising arch-exponent of atheism. And it is evident throughout his book that any deviation from this worldview on the part of the authors he examines often renders them, in his view, maddening. He is reduced to telling us he wants to bang his head against a brick wall when he comes across certain passages written by the views of an orthodox Xtian mystic like Machen, for example, especially if these views inform the nature of his fiction.

It becomes pretty clear in The Weird Tale, that, for Joshi, the really intelligent authors of strange stories are, ideally, atheistic and express their worldviews explicitly in their fiction. Thus, high marks for Bierce, Lovecraft and Dunsany, whereas M.R. James scores very low marks indeed, since he is categorised as only concerned with turning out a decent well-written ghost story.

But Joshi, a scholar whose own life has been absolutely steeped in analysis of H.P. Lovecraft, and of championing HPL's brand of atheism, has actually gone much further than the criteria adhered to by his idol in HPL's own analysis of weird fiction. Lovecraft, whose Supernatural Horror in Literature covers the same contemporaneous authors (as well as many others) made no case for the coherent presentation of an author's worldview constituting any measure of significance in a weird tale. Indeed, Lovecraft judged such tales solely in terms of their success when it came to intrinsic skill and generation of the requisite atmosphere of dread.

An author’s philosophy, religion, or lack thereof, has very little to do with the intrinsic merit of any supernatural horror story he or she has written. It is essentially a question of whether the tale produces its proper aesthetic effect; i.e. that of inducing a sensation of dislocated terror mingled with awe in the reader (an effect often achieved by means of attention to atmosphere and a heightened prose tending to incantation). It seems to me that the greatest horror fiction (such as “The Willows”, “The Colour Out of Space”, “The White People” etc etc) is an imaginative sojourn into a nightmarish outland rather than a metaphor behind which lie author-specific responses to contemporary philosophical, political, cultural or social concerns. What we know of the diversity of opinions amongst authors of horror fiction militates against the notion that any specific viewpoint accompanies excellence in the field. In writing of the supernatural macabre authors go beyond anthropocentric concerns and plunge into unknown gulfs. Supernatural horror fiction does not originate from an emotional response like misery, but rather from an indefinite sense of cosmic Mystery.

When Lovecraft claimed that “the oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown” I believe he is right in all but one detail; I would substitute the word “awe” for “fear”.

One of the arguments I used to hear was Lovecraft's old saw about materialists writing the best supernatural horror fiction because because only they could convey the appropriate terrified response to an incontrovertible violation of natural law in real life. But there would be no such reaction from them. Were hallucination or insanity ruled out then such a “violation” of natural law would simply entail a new modified extension to natural law in order to explain the phenomenon. It would cease to be regarded as “supernatural”. As a last resort the unexplainable would be referred to unknown technological or even alien intervention since these would present far less of a challenge to materialism than any supernatural explanation.

If anyone has done more than S.T. Joshi to advance the standing of weird fiction in the wider cultural milieu, I am at a loss to think who it might be. His opinion of a given author's work in the field is regarded, quite rightly, as significant. But his emphasis on the philosophical aspect of the weird tale has its dangers. Most authors are not generally philosophers. They may often feel, when the creative impetus to pen verse or fiction or drama has waned, that they suddenly have things of the greatest importance to say on matters philosophical, political or social, but the greatest poets can make for the worst of sages. A seasoned writer's only qualification for sagedom is their being more articulate than most in being able to express their views.

Mark S.

I agree with ST Joshi's overall point, but don't understand why it's necessary to be so condescending and insulting to those who do not appreciate Lovecraft's writing – going so far as to accuse them of failures as readers. 'I wonder why Lovecraft's detractors don't just give up. Their foolish screeds are so easily refuted that there is really no sport in it anymore.' Uh, we're talking about opinions here, ST.

I'm aware this is controversial, but I don't think Lovecraft was a very consistent writer. In terms of consistent quality, I would rate Ramsey Campbell and Thomas Ligotti substantially higher, and unlike most HPL fans I completely understand why many people reading the average collection of his work from cover to cover would be left with a negative impression. The people in charge of distributing his fiction often make baffling decisions regarding the best choices which exemplify his qualities as a master of the weird. The first HPL collection I ever purchased purported to be a collection of his best tales, and included Herbert West – Reanimator, The Statement of Randolph Carter, and The Horror at Red Hook, but not The Festival or Nyarlathotep.

Like many, Lovecraft is tied with Poe as my favourite writer of weird/horror fiction – and I consider The Music of Eric Zann to be perhaps the most singularly perfect weird tale I've read – but as I feel with Arthur Machen, my excessive adulation requires me turning a blind eye to a rather large portion of his fiction, and only focusing on the best stories he wrote. As Lovecraft himself had no influence on which stories of his escaped pulp obscurity and entered the public eye, it means we have a fairly flawed selection among the most presented works.

I adore HPL as much as anybody, but refuse to deify him as a writer who did not consistently exhibit significant flaws worthy of criticism, and I continue to feel alienated in a fandom which routinely exalts his weakest excesses as his greatest assets.

[Robin Davies]

Quote Originally Posted by mark_samuels

It becomes pretty clear in The Weird Tale, that, for Joshi, the really intelligent authors of strange stories are, ideally, atheistic and express their worldviews explicitly in their fiction. Thus, high marks for Bierce, Lovecraft and Dunsany, whereas M.R. James scores very low marks indeed, since he is categorised as only concerned with turning out a decent well-written ghost story.

Isn't Blackwood the exception here? Joshi doesn't agree with (or understand) Blackwood's nature mysticism but he clearly loves his work and rates him as highly as Lovecraft.

Quote

An author’s philosophy, religion, or lack thereof, has very little to do with the intrinsic merit of any supernatural horror story he or she has written. It is essentially a question of whether the tale produces its proper aesthetic effect; i.e. that of inducing a sensation of dislocated terror mingled with awe in the reader (an effect often achieved by means of attention to atmosphere and a heightened prose tending to incantation). It seems to me that the greatest horror fiction (such as “The Willows”, “The Colour Out of Space”, “The White People” etc etc) is an imaginative sojourn into a nightmarish outland rather than a metaphor behind which lie author-specific responses to contemporary philosophical, political, cultural or social concerns. What we know of the diversity of opinions amongst authors of horror fiction militates against the notion that any specific viewpoint accompanies excellence in the field. In writing of the supernatural macabre authors go beyond anthropocentric concerns and plunge into unknown gulfs. Supernatural horror fiction does not originate from an emotional response like misery, but rather from an indefinite sense of cosmic Mystery.

I agree with this.

Quote

When Lovecraft claimed that “the oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown” I believe he is right in all but one detail; I would substitute the word “awe” for “fear”.

I disagree with both of you. I'm not sure we have a clue what the oldest emotion is (I suspect that several evolved together, gradually) but the strongest is fear of the known. Surely real dangers like a bad medical diagnosis or a bunch of drunken thugs heading towards you down a narrow alley produce the strongest emotions. But this has little to do with the pleasurable fear (or simulacrum of fear) that we get from good weird fiction which, as you say, needs a strong ingredient of awe and mystery.

[bendk]

Quote Originally Posted by Robin Davies

Quote When Lovecraft claimed that “the oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown” I believe he is right in all but one detail; I would substitute the word “awe” for “fear”. I disagree with both of you. I'm not sure we have a clue what the oldest emotion is (I suspect that several evolved together, gradually) but the strongest is fear of the known. Surely real dangers like a bad medical diagnosis or a bunch of drunken thugs heading towards you down a narrow alley produce the strongest emotions. But this has little to do with the pleasurable fear (or simulacrum of fear) that we get from good weird fiction which, as you say, needs a strong ingredient of awe and mystery.

I have never really agreed with Lovecraft's eminently quotable definition of fear either. Orwell's Room 101, horror specifically catered to each individual's worst nightmare, strikes closer to home for me.


As far as how far HPL should be damned concerning his racist views, I have long felt that Providence should erect a statue of the gent in the city somewhere. That about sums it up for me. There are few authors, Kafka and Prague is one, that are more identifiable to a city than Lovecraft to Providence. I seriously doubt it will ever happen, but it would be good for the tourist trade. I may sound out views on this in another thread someday, or someone else can, if I forget.

Quote Originally Posted by Druidic

Lovecraft's racial views add, as Murony Pyre might put it, authenticity to his fiction. Are we going to pretend that the science of his time, the Experts, didn't state unequivocally that blacks were genetically inferior? Are we going to pretend that America wasn't a country with a racist history? Writers far more acclaimed than Lovecraft had even more severe views on race. I can't be bothered by the racism of a man born well over a century ago.

I agree. I think we are holding Lovecraft to a higher standard of morality than other notable individuals from the past. In case his critics haven't noticed, there are a few memorials, statues, and historical landmarks that celebrate the achievements of men who actually owned other people and considered them property. Washington, Jefferson, and even Lincoln held racist views. It would be nice if everyone had the enlightened views of a Mark Twain, but sadly that's not the case. Lovecraft's racism is deplorable by today's standards and should be condemned, but it shouldn't define him or limit the esteem he deserves as an author.
In my early twenties, I read much about the "race problem" due to my interest in WWII and the Holocaust. One American intellectual during Lovecraft's time was Lothrop Stoddard. I read a couple of his books, The Rising Tide of Color and The Revolt of Civilization. I don't know if Lovecraft read him, but his racism reflects not only the long-held views of black people, but the backlash against massive immigration. It immediately came to mind when I first read "The Horror from Red Hook". Lovecraft's attitude was hardly unique.

[qcrisp]

I probably shouldn't comment, especially when I have limited time, and when I've said all I really wanted to say in previous posts here at TLO, and it's all too easy to get drawn into an endless and fruitless controversy, but I'll at least give some explanation as to why I chose the word "illiterate" above. This is from Robert Dunbar's blog post on Lovecraft:

Quote

But… why aren’t more people offended? I just don’t get this. Why does old HPL get a free pass when it comes to hate speech?

I don't know where to start here except to say that this whole thing seems to proceed from a grave misunderstanding of what literature, in the form of fiction (and including poetry and similar forms), actually is. It alarms me that so many people who call themselves writers these days share this same total lack of understanding of the role of literature in human life.

Literature IS a free pass. That is, as long as you are faithful to the muse, you can tread where you may. That is the entire point of literature.

It is there to act as a sounding board for the human soul, so that we can hear the echoes there to their very depths.

Part of the fact of the human soul is that it occupies time, so that there are necessarily historical echoes in the human soul, too.

Of course, conscience must play its part, since conscience is part of the soul, but it plays a different part in literature than it does in real life. It plays a double role, since literature is always acting as go-between for two sides - society, to whom literature is published, and the individual, either as writer or reader, who, through literature, fathoms the most poignant accords and discords between society and him or herself.

This is not a process that can occur if people are constantly trying to muffle those voices in literature that offend them.

In the end, what the likes of Dunbar do is a hindrance to this very subtle working of the human conscience, because it weights the scales ever further towards judgement and away from forgiveness.

	TLO THOMAS LIGOTTI ONLINE

He doesn't get a free pass from me. He's perhaps my most cherished writer of fiction, but his racialism was nothing short of disgusting and woefully unintelligent. Ditto for his elitist views on social class – a problem shared with all of the classic writers of the weird, and one not criticised nearly enough for my liking.

Ramsey Campbell's fiction felt like such a breath of fresh air to me for actually featuring working class protagonists, and not exalting upper class culture as the only prism through which to view the weird.

[hopfrog]

S. T.'s point is that this is not a matter of opinion but of fact. An opinion would phrase it, "I don't care for Lovecraft's fiction, he is boring, pretentious, and wordy." But there must be a level of factual truth to the question, Was Lovecraft a bad writer? I have read many books that illustrate why Lovecraft was an excellent writer. I haven't read any books that tell why he was a poor writer. I find these complaints against his prose style on the Internet only. I've been reading the fiction, slowly and aloud, as I proof the Variorum editions, and doing so has reveal'd to me as fact what I suspected as opinion--Lovecraft was an excellent writer, and his prose is, more often than not, superb, effective, and correct.

Any opinion regarding the quality of a writer would fall in to the realm of the subjective. Appreciation of an author's writing comes down to a mix of the approaching reader's own temperament, sensitivities, preoccupations, passions, and and individual background/memories. These are hieroglyphics on a page, and have zero objective meaning, so there are no objective opinions on writing.

There are many people whom I admire/respect that do not enjoy Lovecraft's writing, and would deem it poor (Robert Aickman, for an example we all know). I would not consider them 'factually' incorrect, or feel the need to treat them with rudeness, as it is merely their own individual opinion. I believe when Lovecraft was at his best, he was truly untouchable at articulating horrors which speak to me most deeply, but if somebody else is not moved by his fiction, or views it as poor, I accept their point of view as equally valid as my own or ST Joshi's.