Just received this purchased book….
Edited by Carl H. Sederholm and Jeffrey Andrew Weinstock
Foreword by Ramsey Campbell
Featuring words from James Kneale, Isabella van Elferen, Brian Johnson, Jed Mayer, David Simmons, Jessica George, David Punter, W. Scott Poole, China Miéville.
THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA PRESS 2016
In due course, I shall comment on this book in the thought stream below.
Please see first few entries on this Google search regarding my creative inspiration from HPL in the 1960s: HERE.
I have just read the first six pages of the Introduction. Very satisfying fare. Highly textured with mind-awakening philosophy, even at this early stage of the book. “Why Lovecraft, why now?” Cosmic indifferentism seems akin to the results of gestalt real-time reviewing fiction books as objects become preternatural forces separate from humanity. Do they retain such power even if no-one reads them? impossible to answer, of course.
Dreamcatching?…
“…a rethinking of traditional philosophical vitalism that strips humanity of its exceptionalism and resituates it as the fragile product of cosmic coincidence.”
The introduction deals thoroughly with the whys and wherefores of the high profile of Lovecraft in modern days, his racism etc etc
The first essay proper is:
GHOULISH DIALOGUES: HP Lovecraft’s Weird Geographies
by James Kneale (cultural and historical geographer at University College London.)
My review will continue in due course below….
“lovecraft”
Or as suggested elsewhere: Machen’s White People rather than the art of love as lovecraft with a small ‘l’?
From Introduction –
“Since one purpose of this book is to reflect on the significance of Lovecraft’s increasing popularity, not to mention his marked impact on early twentieth-first-century discourse, we cannot dismiss the problem of racism as irrelevant, nor can we resolve it to everyone’s satisfaction.”
MY EARLIER REAL-TIME REVIEW OF “THE HAUNTER OF THE DARK” Panther COLLECTION, AT THE BOTTOM OF WHICH PAGE IS ALSO A LINK TO MY REVIEW OF ‘THE DREAM QUEST OF UNKNOWN KADATH’: https://dflewisreviews.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/the-haunter-of-the-dark-hp-lovecraft/
—————–
I have now read the first few pages of the James Kneale essay where we seem to be given permission to brainstorm upon HPL’s style and influence, where, just as one example, style awkwardness can lead to some sort of weird truth or insight (as my review above has ALREADY done!) i.e.:-
“The Age of Lovecraft might, in fact, be weirder than many of the fictions in his name.”
Weird style outweighing its weird content.
More later…
Content versus style, a tension that concerned me personally ever since studying Russian Formalism in the 1960s and Wimsatt’s Intentional Fallacy. There is much food for thought in this essay, cubism and triangulation, and objects seen in their own right as flensed and flayed from under ‘unimagined’ layers of allusion. And his stories’ triangulated growing technics of transmission now taken further abroad within HPL’s residual ‘gray areas’ and spacing – as sexed up by the Internet?
References to Poe, Miéville and Stross. And Graham Harman.
The Thomas Ligotti Online Forum discussion thread initiated today about this book:
http://www.ligotti.net/showthread.php?t=10959
———–
The second essay is:
LOVECRAFT’S THINGS: Sinister Souvenirs from Other Worlds
By Jeffrey Andrew Weinstock (Professor of English at Central Michigan University.)
Looking back from the beyond of HPL’s Gothic narratives, and by dealing with the Gothic as THING-POWER, there are factored in, inter alia, Danielewski’s HOUSE oF Leaves, KIngs’s Overlook Hotel, Poe’s House of Usher, the Whovian TARDIS, and forbidden texts like The Necronomicon, and we are given a decidedly oblique slant on Lovecraft fiction texts, text that radiates more than what the words themselves mean, I guess. And, for me these thing-powers represent the flotsam and jetsam that I myself talked about in 2006:-
“It is much more complex than simple suspension of belief (or even disbelief). Horror fiction, at its best, enters our individual territories and becomes part and parcel of a revolving realm with Death at its core: and, in this realm, all the flotsam and jetsam of life (the richest life being generated by the imagination as well as by the day-to-day interaction of our minds and bodies) spin round, some colliding only to ricochet off, others sticking together, some being swallowed whole or bit by bit. Eventually, the various items are sucked into the core where they are minced up or refined into streams of sense (or apparent sense or, even, nonsense) which are then released from that realm into other revolving realms which create new collisions, fusions and spin-offs. This is using Death as a positive tool, as it surely is. Without Death, we’d be nothing.”
Above quoted from my blog here in 2006: http://weirdmonger.blogspot.co.uk/2006/04/free-fiction.html
Please also witness the flaying and flensing of the publicly projected Ligotti self from the ‘Purity’ of Ligotti’s fiction texts, as flayed and flensed by myself and as linked from here: http://www.ligotti.net/showpost.php?p=119386&postcount=1
The third essay is
HYPER-CACOPHONY: Lovecraft, Speculative Realism, and Sonic Materialism
By Isabella van Elferen (Professor of music and director of research for the School of Performance and Screen Studies at Kingston University London.)
“Thus, the ‘shrieking, roaring confusion of sound’ (Lovecraft, ‘Witch House,’ 305) that thunders through his weird universes signifies both Lovecraft’s kinship to and irreconcilability with contemporary philosophy — or any earthly philosophy, for that matter.”
This essay presents an impressively detailed litany of ‘unpleasant’ sound or music in the HPL fiction texts, in fact, for me, the major leitmotif in them. A gestalt that presents the infinite repercussions of dincopated infinity in, say, the “Ph’nglui…” incantation or refrain.
Mentions also Meillassoux.
I can now no longer question my lifelong love of HPL fiction texts and of music like Stockhausen, Schoenberg, Xenakis etc as well as the slightly more mellifluous Debussy, Glass, Messiaen, Beethoven late string quartets etc etc.
This essay has become a seminal slant on HPL, for me, and I shall revisit my real-time reviews where such references have permeated them since 2008 and my own reading since I first encountered HPL in 1964.
——————–
My past Dreamcatching Gestalt Real-time Reviews of Joshi associated books…
My real-time review of THE KING IN YELLOW: https://dflewisreviews.wordpress.com/2014/10/31/the-king-in-yellow-a-real-time-review/
Classical Music Horror Anthology (2012)
The fourth essay is
PREHISTORIES OF POSTHUMANISM: Cosmic Indifferentism, Alien Genesis, and Ecology from H. P. Lovecraft to Ridley Scott
By Brian Johnson (associate professor and graduate chair of English at Carleton University)
More later…
“Just as Lovecraft personified his materialist philosophy of ‘cosmic indifferentism’ in a timeless pantheon of alien ‘gods’ productive of epiphanic ‘cosmic horror’ in human discoverers of their presence, so too did O’Bannon, Scott, and the film’s other scriptwriters embody the amorality of the universe in a deadly alien life form…”
I am sure others will find this essay fascinating, but since I have long suffered from ‘cinematic indifferentism’, I don’t think I am in a position to comment further on its comparisons with the films Alien and Prometheus.
The fifth essay is
RACE, SPECIES, AND OTHERS: H. P. Lovecraft and the Animal
By Jed Mayer (associate professor of Victorian literature at SUNY – New Paltz.)
More later…
And in the above context of its goal, this essay presents a telling perspective – from the HPL works and surrounding mores of the time, literature and scientific studies – of this knotty issue in HPL, including a fascinating reference to the tentacle’s arrival in the Gothic.
On a personal note, when I first read HPL in the 1960s, I knew nothing about the author, and I then felt not even a hint of this knotty issue. However, forced as I was to learn more about HPL in ensuing years, especially through his letters to Kleiner, I, too, was altered in my mindset towards his works. I suppose, with my interest, also from the 1960s, in Wimsatt’s Intentional Fallacy as a literary theory, I should not have allowed my mindset to have changed, but change it did.
Later today. – just cross-referenced this essay with my synchronous review of a Flannery O’Connor story here: https://dflewisreviews.wordpress.com/2016/07/01/flannery-oconnor-complete-stories/#comment-7676
Also, since writing my review above of Jed Mayer’s essay, this morning I had a minor operation on my neck’s long-term troublous sebaceous-cyst, and the surgeon lanced, drained and seaweed-dressing-packed it, while talking to me about its ‘tentacles’. Yes, that is the word he actually used! (Sometimes, I don’t believe myself!)
Cross-referenced here: https://dflewisreviews.wordpress.com/2016/07/19/a-collapse-of-horses/#comment-7805
The sixth essay is
H. P. LOVECRAFT’S RELUCTANT SEXUALITY: Abjection and the Monstrousn Feminine in ‘The Dunwich Horror’
By Carl H. Sederholm (associate professor of humanities at Brigham Young University)
More later…
“In other words. Lovecraft’s sexual loathing, his attempt to separate human behaviour from animal action, and his apparent wish to escape physical instincts, desires, or passions, all suggest a difficulty reconciling intellectual fantasies with physical realities.”
A refreshingly open-ended and exploratory essay, describing, inter alia, possible associations with his father’s death by syphilis, the “paradoxes of the body”, Lavinia Whateley’s imputed coupling with Yog Sothoth and Joshi’s apparent propensity, in his studies, not to pursue HPL’s sexual side, beyond reference to a possible low sex drive.
The seventh essay is
H. P. LOVECRAFT AND REAL PERSON FICTION: The Pulp Author as Subcultural Avatar
By Davud Simmons (senior lecturer in English and screen studies at Northampton University.)
More later…
This is a topic of which I have little knowledge. A form of fanfiction called RPF and how HPL as a real person, was used, from Bloch onwards, in such fiction, and this phenomenon as relating to HPL is indeed fascinating. It is a form of Tuckerisation, I guess, and it is ironic that my favourite exponent of this device is Rhys Hughes who once said this of HPL: http://rhysaurus.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/lovecrafts-something.html
The eighth essay is
A POLYCHROME STUDY: Neil Gaiman’s “A Study in Emerald” and Lovecraft’s Literary Afterlives
By Jessica George (PhD from Cardiff University)
More later…
“Lovecraft is, if not everywhere, in many places — and, as such, is many things.”
“…that human identity may rely upon writing, but the identities we inhabit when we write, and when we rewrite by reading, are always multiple and partial.”
This remarkably seems to represent my long-term ethos of gestalt real-time reviewing, i.e. reader and author in mutual synergy, the two-way pecking order of author, narrator, characters and readers, a filter in both directions. The potential public triangulation of any work as it is hawled or dreamcaught through a myriad of real-time reviewers, Wimsatt’s Intentional Fallacy, Jungianism and more. As well as this essay being another revelation regarding the phenomenon that is Lovecraft. A unique name that only he and his family bears – as the final irony? A watershed for me, too.
LOVECRAFT: Suspicion, Pattern Recognition, Paranoia
By David Punter (Professor of English at the University of Bristol)
As well as this essay’s attempt to reconcile the paradox of its own aim to ‘prove’ the modernity of HPL texts despite their overt, presumably ‘intentional’, archaism, it also deals, as part of that reconciliation, with apophenia and pareidolia which two linked obsessions anyone reading my gestalt real-time book reviews will attest are fully present in me!
Paranoia, conspiracy, incantatory recurrencies like lists of forbidden books, a minimalist music or a French anti-novel?
Another watershed for me. I have ever considered HPL’s work ‘modern’ but never really addressed this point before. Thanks, Mr Punter.
I see that it can also relate to what I have long called Aickman’s ‘disarming strangenesses’ which in turn can be related to TS Eliot’s ‘objective correlatives’ (TSE being a writer I believe HPL did not like!)
My things about AICKMAN linked here: https://dflewisreviews.wordpress.com/robert-aickman/
Other possible related real-time reviews concerning works by Blackwood, Machen, Poe and John Cowper Powys:
And other older or classic books triangulated by myself potentially relevant and linked from here:
LOVECRAFT’S COSMIC ETHICS
By Patricia MacCormack (Professor of continental philosophy at Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge)
“Against many critics, Lovecraft offers entryways into feminist, ecosophical, queer, and mystical (albeit atheist) configurations of difference. [.….] …to show that Lovecraft is uncannily relevant for posthuman philosophies, and that traditional criticisms of his work as nihilistic, misogynistic, unethical, and generally concerned with the maintenance of traditional values ought to be reoriented.”
I wonder if you will consider this essay meets with such a goal. I, for one, have found it impressive and compelling.
LOVECRAFT, WITCH CULTS, AND PHILOSOPHERS
By W. Scott Poole (Professor of history at the College of Charleston)
This seems to me to be a bit of a balance to some of this book’s other brainstorming. Basing HPL’s racism on his interest (subsumption?) in witchcraft (as well as cosmic horror, great old ones etc). This article does not excuse but perhaps explains. What do you think? I find it less interesting from an Intentional Fallacy point of view, and prefer the hyper-cacophony, pareidolia and modernity side of the HPL texts, if not the personal side of HPL himself.
I do not usually carry out real-time reviews on anything but fiction, and I have tried, in this review, to draw out a texture rather than an acrimony. I may or may not have some skill in dreamcatching pure fiction, but I make no claims about reviewing academic literary-criticism, biography, history, philosophy, science, religion, sociology…
I have found the afterword interview with Miéville offputting and unnecessary. But I did admire the Campbell foreword as a hors d’oeuvres. Meanwhile, I think anyone reading the main eleven essays as a gestalt will find a new gestalt of HPL as a multi-faceted phenomenon, a preternatural configuration beyond the tentacles, one that paradoxically attracts, repels and purges. Those who study, admire, hate or pastiche him are lucky to work in his shadow, a shadow more defined after this book but crazily even more ill-defined, too!
Attracts, repels and purges, yes, and it is a book that I can now remove from the lid of the biggest purging device of our civilisation called the Lavatory. It seems to conclusively disprove a contention I found someone making about academic studies of HPL in connection with this specific book: an on-line statement that academia “went completely into the toilet with postmodernist insanities like poststructuralism and deconstruction after the 1960s.” At least we can now purge that particular myth. I hope my fiction reviews utilise such methods, among many other methods new and old, to triangulate the books I buy to read.
Today’s Age of Lovecraft, derived from a prophetic sort of walking, breathing, complex, entangled Age of the Internet that is part of the same palimpsest. So, yes, the cosmic HPL HyPerLink attracts, repels, purges AND connects – for good and ill as humanity’s intrinsic nature that ever needs purging, laving, loving.
end
Future criticisms of this book will no doubt tap into academiphobia, a phobia as prejudiced as any other phobia or -ism or anti-ism?
http://www.ligotti.net/showpost.php?p=126563&postcount=7
http://www.ligotti.net/showthread.php?p=140137#post140137
Pingback: Lovecraft’s last lav | The Des Lewis Gestalt Real-Time Review
My review of the HPL controversy in August 2017: https://dflewisreviews.wordpress.com/13274-2/
A Google search on my own Toilet Mythos in the distant past: HERE.