The Philosophy of H.P. Lovecraft: The Route to Horror (New Studies in Aesthetics) [Englisch] [Gebundene Ausgabe]

In the second paragraph of Airaksinen's book, we have a statement that Lovecraft states in his letters that he disliked visiting Corpus Christi because of the stink of fish. Lovecraft never made it west of the Mississippi. This is indicative of far too much of the book. There are examples of poor, slopping readings (such as questioning how the narrator could tell Zann's eyes were bulging in the dark when the story states (p. 90) that he saw them before the candles were blown out and, (p.91) once they were, he felt of Zann's face, including the eyes), false summaries (Nahum being aware of Nabbi's death in "The Colour Out of Space", when it is Ammi Pierce who finds and -- we are led to believe -- kills what is left of her), and outright invention (such as the quote about Corpus Christi noted above).

This is a pity, because what is good about the book is indeed very good. Except for the sort of thing indicated above, he has interesting and challenging analyses of "The Music of Erich Zann" and "The Festival" (although he puts far too much emphasis on a Christian interpretation -- one of his earliest statements being that one of the pillars of horror literature is "our basic fear of damnation without God" -- Lovecraft was a thoroughgoing atheist, and such a concern was completely alien to him). There are also some lovely turns of phrase (especially in the chapter on "The Festival"); and the book almost makes the grade at times. Unfortunately, what is good is far, far too little here, and the mistakes, misreadings, and outright invention (in order to give a Freudian reading to "The Colour Out of Space" he insists that Nahum is naked when the narrator finds him, otherwise, he asks, how could the narrator know he was crumbling? Well, the story states that there is a crumbling, contraction and collapse of those effected by the unknown color, and surely Nahum's clothes would reflect the body within them collapsing by caving in on themselves). Many of the ideas he has are at least challenging, but a much more careful reading would have improved the book enormously. It is also questionable for anyone who admits "I find the dreamland stories difficult to read, appreciate, or criticize" to do a book of analyses on a writer who said of himself "Serious literary efforts now <are> confined to tales of dream-life, strange shadow, and cosmic outsideness". On a technical note, the book is, sadly, riddled with poor editing and typographical errors (such as p. 41) "Mere <sic> a given set of desires and aversions do not suffice" instead of "merely". As was said 80 years ago by Elise Tash Sater (see In Defence of Dagon) "Mr. Lovecraft does not write for lazy readers." Professor Airaksinen, as well as far too many other less conscientious critics, would do well to bear this in mind.

If you are a fan of H.P. Lovecraft . . . reach for the blunted knife and gouge your eyes out before reading this dribble. The section entitled "Unreadability and Unwriting" is insulting on so many levels. Lovecraft is condemned for his stylistic addiction to adjectives (no mention is made of Howard and Smith who were also guilty of the sin of 'adjectivitis'). Pound and Hemingway certainly crushed Faulkner in the battle of adjectives and Timo is swift to pick up the standard of those dead paragons. He would do well, however, to read Tolkien's advice on 'recovery' as it deals with fantasy before Lambasting Lovecraft's child-like use of modifiers. Sigh . . . enough of this ranting . . . I have a book to burn.