derivations from hp lovecraft

[loc.cit]

It seems to me that contemporary authors like Stephen King and Peter Straub, to name only two, draw heavily on Lovecraft, in a positive way and using their own imaginitive takes of course. This is not a criticism but merely a reminder of how much is owed to ideas mooted several decades ago.

[Curt Chiarelli]

So very true. Not only King and Straub, but a whole slew of other third rate authors churn out derivative, fourth rate Lovecraftian pastiches, creative typists like Poppy Z. Brite and Brian Lumley, etc. It just goes to show you just how creatively bankrupt the arts have become. The irony is all the more stinging when you realize how unsuccessful and unappreciated H.P.L. was in his own lifetime, yet how wealthy our modern authors have become cribbing from his notes. This will not be the first - nor the last - example of a man who was too far ahead of his own time and paid a steep price for it. However, like Nicola Tesla, Lovecraft is a prime example of latterday looting by lesser talents who have have cashed in on his ideas and made a fortune.

[pyan]

Originally Posted by Curt Chiarelli

So very true. Not only King and Straub, but a whole slew of other third rate authors

King "third-rate", Curt? Really?

[Curt Chiarelli]

Originally Posted by pyan

King "third-rate", Curt? Really?

King the institution as well as King the writer can be quite the hack. Especially during his free-wheeling days as a coke addict. During the 1980s the man was churning out doorstops once a month for a decade.

As a prime example, I'd like to examine 'Salem's Lot. There are passages in which the cadences, lyricism and penetrating insight into the human condition will take you breath away, paragraphs where the man's prose transcends and elevates the book above the ghetto of its genre.

And then, what does he do? He'll revert right back to a gossipy soap opera tone and content, of which the sordid details do not help propel the story forward nor enhance it in any way (who's cheating on whose wife, who's the town drunkard, etc). It's tasteless populism taken to its picayune depths.

Reading 'Salem's Lot is a lot like watching Puccini's La Boheme devolve into Peyton Place bitchiness before your very eyes. Moments of sheer brilliance floating in a sea of raw sewage. No Stevie, no!

The man's talent and high level of intelligence is clearly apparent. He has more money than the damned Vatican. We're thus assured that he and his family won't starve waiting for his next book deal to go through. He should cast aside his folksy workman attitude, hunker down and create something that's worthy of his gifts. He not only owes it to himself, he owes it to his art.

[pyan]

Hmm..
Now, I'd never read any of his work before a couple of months ago, when I was "persuaded" to do so, so I'm certainly no expert on the man - but I must say I've been very impressed with the Dark Tower sequence. Have you read this? Perhaps it's the story he always should have written...............

[GOLLUM]

Originally Posted by pyan

Hmm..
Now, I'd never read any of his work before a couple of months ago, when I was "persuaded" to do so, so I'm certainly no expert on the man - but I must say I've been very impressed with the Dark Tower sequence. Have you read this? Perhaps it's the story he always should have written...............

Dark Tower series is good and now I have the Graphic novel to boot!!...

[j. d. worthington]

In one way or another, Lovecraft has influenced the vast majority of writers in the field since his day. With most, they've either written Lovecraftian pieces of their own, or studiously avoided anything they felt smacked of the man and his work in any way; much like Poe after his death, Lovecraft has had perhaps more influence on the genre than anyone of the past century (including King, who most definitely has been influenced by him in many tales... not just overt pastiches, but in other, more subtle ways).

Nor are some of these either third- (or fourth-) raters, nor hacks, but genuine talents either serving their apprenticeship or paying hommage to the man. These would include Ramsey Campbell, Robert Bloch, T. E. D. Klein, Thomas Ligotti, Willum H. Pugmire, W. Paul Wilson, Joanna Russ, Phillip José Farmer, Gary Myers, Caitlin R. Kiernan, Fritz Leiber, Roger Zelazny.....

Simply put, Lovecraft was (and, like Poe or Mary Shelley or M. R. James or Arthur Machen, etc., remains) a seminal influence. It isn't so much being ahead of his time as being a distinctly individual voice with a very unique approach to life and the world that could not help but be reflected in his work (both fiction and non-fiction). Love him or hate him, to deny his importance to the fields of horror, fantasy, and science fiction is to completely ignore the facts of the matter. And while the bulk of Lovecraftian pastiche (or even work influenced by) may be quite easy to dismiss, there are always those which, for one reason or another, do haunt the reader long afterward... usually because they combine the Lovecraftian influence with a unique vision of their own.

[brsrkrkomdy]

I'd dispute that notion Poppy Z. Brite as being a second and third rate writer. She's a first rate writer, and always will be, IMNSHO.

[sacateca]

i have to say that i'm at a loss to see what interesting King has said about the human condition, ever. To me he's always been a hack and will always remain so. Which goes to show how much everything depends on the reader. i think Lovecraft is not great because of his influence over the genre or future writers, or because serious critics are starting to understand his importance, or because he was ahead of his time, i think he's great because his writings have touched me deeply, as has his life and what he's had to say about things, and only because of that - in a word, i think he was sensitive and intelligent and wrote what he wanted the way he wanted, and his character touches me. And whilst i don't appreciate King at all, his writing style or his insights (my worldview is obviously entirely different from his - i would even call his insights 'cheap sentimentality'), it shouldn't take anything away from anyone whom he has touched. i guess my point is, i would deny any objective definition of greatness, and would retain the right for everyone to define their own hacks and masters, according to their own standards. The majority count makes a bad standard for art. Only good thing about being universally hailed as great is that one's works are then readily available and those whom one admires more or less alone are more difficult to come by.

[Lobolover]

Uhm,I'd just like to note that I kinda dislike some taking over the best stu,copying it and puting it into setings never meant for it to apear in.Pastiches to Chambers in "Rehersals for Oblivon" is one particular example o what I mean.