 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)DADONCK ...and 163 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613860 Today 0 Topics 127525 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
or, "Horrorism". I got impatient and decided to read the Robin Mackay translation. I do intend to get a hard copy eventually. Anyhow. Good stuff! He's very insightful and gives Lovecraft the serious consideration he deserves. I have a couple of quibbles. One, the idea that Lovecraft never addresses sex, and that his cosmic horror isn't sublimated or symbolic sexuality - The Shadow Over Innsmouth as a glaring example is one endless conga line of fish fuckin'. Or the Dunwich Horror - also full of sex, it just isn't between consenting adult humans. IMO one of the reasons Lovecraft's protagonist in Mountains of Madness feels kinship and fellow-feelings towards the Elder Things in the end is that they're dying out slowly in a refined, respectable way, rather than breeding wildly like the shoggoths and other life (us for example) that inadvertently sprung from their creations. Just like Lovecraft liked to consider himself the refined, gentlemanly end of a patrician line. I also think he doesn't situate Lovecraft's art properly in his personal life, and that Houellebecq as a reactionary himself has some blind spots. Nevertheless, great reading, and I'm jumping up and down with excitement and new ideas about how and why Lovecraft is so important to the Nick Land etc. school of reactionary thought. Have you seen Graham Harman's book Weird Realism: Lovecraft and Philosophy? That's next on my reading list. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Someone is in the mood for a little: bromance! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I wasn't kidding about having a yen for traditional English faggots. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
did someone say traditional english faggot?! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I will contribute to this properly later. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
p.s. not implying that only reactionaries have blind spots, I mean I think Houellebecq is too close to his subject matter in this case to see some things properly. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Just wanna add, Michel is correct that Lovecraft's flights of purple prose are one of his greatest assets, not a weakness, and when he cuts loose in Entombed with the Pharaohs it's gold, one of his best bits of writing. I mean, fuck "good taste". Lovecraft was sui generis, did his own thing and taste be damned. But you'll notice that writers who are baptized as literary figures are allowed to defy taste as much as they want, take Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow is purpler than anything Lovecraft wrote and goes on like that for hundreds of pages. Literary classic! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
