![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
"Those Who Love Life Do Not Read"
Jun. 5th, 2005 11:48 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
joysilenceSome of you may be interested in this article by Michel Houellebecq on H P Lovecraft (link from regenzeit.) It's a fascinating and unusually detailed study of Lovecraft's life and attitudes, and the way they relate to his fiction. Houellebecq eschews the all-too-widespread trend of portraying the doomy author as a unilaterally foul racist and woman-hater, and his description of Lovecraft's painful entry into adulthood (complete with 5-year "nervous breakdown") and rejection of the comforts of religion actually manages to make the guy sound like a human being, without being overly pitying.
After a few paragraphs exploring Lovecraft's lack of joie de vivre, Houellebecq goes on to explore an age-old paradox central to the life of any horror fan: why do we delight in comic and supernatural horror at all, when it's so upsetting? No real explanation is offered, but from the outset Houellebecq ties in the work of Lovecraft with his own hatred of realism - any fiction, however vile, is preferable to real life when the need to escape strikes. Finally, Houellebecq looks at the "gigantic dream machine" of the Cthulhu mythos, pointing out how unusual it is for such a thing to spring up in a culture where originality is often considered an all-important virtue.
I really enjoyed reading this article - the author obviously knows his stuff and applies a level of seriousness to his subject that is not often found in genre criticism (especially horror)...I've often noticed that French critics are more keen to treat horror as "proper" literature. That said, I don't agree with everything he writes. Personally, though I enjoy reading Lovecraft's work, I am not really a "necronomiphile" and can name many horror authors whose works I enjoy more. Outside the "great texts" mentioned in the article, I find a lot of his writing shoddy, hysterical and unconvincing (even some of the texts mentioned made me laugh more than shudder.) However, when Lovecraft is writing at his best he does arouse in me a type of horror that few other authors do - a blend of cosmic terror and crude physical revulsion that lingers on the emotional palate, like the trail of a slug that's just crawled over the back of your hand.
I think, however, that Houellebecq over-stresses Lovecraft's originality - his avowed influence William Hope Hodgson should have got a mention , I reckon. Regarding the phenomenon of the Mythos itself, I wonder, also, if the creation of such a mythology is really as unusual as Houellbecq insists? It is certainly rare in "proper" literature, but what about the new world of internet fanfiction, which seems to throw up new and extensive mythologies daily? Originality of character and basic content is not much prized in the world of fanfics - is this a good, bad or indifferent thing, and what are the ramifications of this new trend in amateur fiction for the horror genre, and, I guess, culture as a whole?
regenzeit.) It's a fascinating and unusually detailed study of Lovecraft's life and attitudes, and the way they relate to his fiction. Houellebecq eschews the all-too-widespread trend of portraying the doomy author as a unilaterally foul racist and woman-hater, and his description of Lovecraft's painful entry into adulthood (complete with 5-year "nervous breakdown") and rejection of the comforts of religion actually manages to make the guy sound like a human being, without being overly pitying.After a few paragraphs exploring Lovecraft's lack of joie de vivre, Houellebecq goes on to explore an age-old paradox central to the life of any horror fan: why do we delight in comic and supernatural horror at all, when it's so upsetting? No real explanation is offered, but from the outset Houellebecq ties in the work of Lovecraft with his own hatred of realism - any fiction, however vile, is preferable to real life when the need to escape strikes. Finally, Houellebecq looks at the "gigantic dream machine" of the Cthulhu mythos, pointing out how unusual it is for such a thing to spring up in a culture where originality is often considered an all-important virtue.
I really enjoyed reading this article - the author obviously knows his stuff and applies a level of seriousness to his subject that is not often found in genre criticism (especially horror)...I've often noticed that French critics are more keen to treat horror as "proper" literature. That said, I don't agree with everything he writes. Personally, though I enjoy reading Lovecraft's work, I am not really a "necronomiphile" and can name many horror authors whose works I enjoy more. Outside the "great texts" mentioned in the article, I find a lot of his writing shoddy, hysterical and unconvincing (even some of the texts mentioned made me laugh more than shudder.) However, when Lovecraft is writing at his best he does arouse in me a type of horror that few other authors do - a blend of cosmic terror and crude physical revulsion that lingers on the emotional palate, like the trail of a slug that's just crawled over the back of your hand.
I think, however, that Houellebecq over-stresses Lovecraft's originality - his avowed influence William Hope Hodgson should have got a mention , I reckon. Regarding the phenomenon of the Mythos itself, I wonder, also, if the creation of such a mythology is really as unusual as Houellbecq insists? It is certainly rare in "proper" literature, but what about the new world of internet fanfiction, which seems to throw up new and extensive mythologies daily? Originality of character and basic content is not much prized in the world of fanfics - is this a good, bad or indifferent thing, and what are the ramifications of this new trend in amateur fiction for the horror genre, and, I guess, culture as a whole?
