Michel Houellebecq...

[pyan]

A copy of this has turned up in my local Borders. I was wondering about getting it and thought I'd ask if anyone has any comments...

H. P. Lovecraft: Against the World, Against Life: Michel Houellebecq, Stephen King: Books

I can only find one previous mention of it here, with Leto and knivesout both being unimpressed - but not knowing about their hobbyhorses, it's less than helpful...

Lovecraft in Washington Post

[j. d. worthington]

I've got it set aside for a read soon (probably this weekend), so if you can hold off that long, I could give you my impression. However, from what I hear, it is at best a mixed bag....

[Ningauble]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

I've got it set aside for a read soon (probably this weekend), so if you can hold off that long, I could give you my impression. However, from what I hear, it is at best a mixed bag....

Yes, there is no mistaking Houellebecq's enthusiasm, but he draws some weird conclusions and he is working from outdated source material (such as De Camp's biography). Besides, be wary of whenever he pretends to be quoting Lovecraft: Some of the quotations seem to be made up.

It annoys me so when people refer to it as a "biography", as I've seen some critics do. It isn't; it is a personal essay, or rather, as I think Houellebecq himself has said, a novel with only one character.

[Ningauble]

There is an interview with S. T. Joshi at Fruitless Recursion: INTERVIEW - S. T. Joshi

in which he has some interesting things to say about Houellebecq's book, although he admits that he hasn't read it in detail.

(He also mentions two interesting projects: his history of weird fiction, and the 25-volume Lovecraft Letters project)

[pyan]

Thanks, both - I think I'll put it on my "Maybe" list...

[j. d. worthington]

Well, Pyan, I'm about two-thirds of the way through it at this point and yes, it is a mixed bag. He does have some interesting insights and some thought-provoking ideas (as well as some passages which are -- at least this translation -- very well written)... but he also has a strong tendency to use "quotes" which are complete fabrications either on his part or that of the French editions he was using. Add to this his tendency to extremely dubious assertions/conclusions now and again, and the picture becomes even more muddled.

I'd say it is worth reading, as it is a rather interesting if odd little book; but I'd also advise reading it with extreme caution: don't take anything he asserts about Lovecraft, his views, or things he supposedly said at face value. They should be read as Houellebecq's speculations unless verified by other sources....

[brsrkrkomdy]

I already read that book. It IS a mixed bag: it's first half of personal essay on Lovecraft at roughly 15,000 words or more. The second half is two of Lovecraft's "great texts" (Houellebecg's words not mine.) One is Call of Cthulhu and the other is--I forgot. It's an interesting essay easily recommended as an intro for anyone not familiar with Lovecraft's work. However, it didn't break new ground whatsoever. There wasn't anything in there that we Lovecraftian fans didn't already know about.

[j. d. worthington]

The other is "The Whisperer in Darkness".

No, it didn't break any new ground, really; but some of his perspectives are interesting and a bit different. However, as noted, any time he cites HPL, it's best to check sources, as there's a good possibility he ain't quoting Grandpa Theobald....

[brsrkrkomdy]

Either it's the translation or Houellebecq was paraphrasing his quotes.

[Ningauble]

Originally Posted by brsrkrkomdy

Either it's the translation or Houellebecq was paraphrasing his quotes.

Well, some of them appear to be made up out of the blue. In the translation there is an afterword by the translator where she lists all the quotes and what sources she has been able to identify, and I particularly remember one where a supposed character from a story refers to the Akkadean language -- and the word "Akkadean" or anything that could be mistaken for it does not occur anywhere in Lovecraft's fiction or his known letters.

[j. d. worthington]

There are quite a few such instances, including things where he is "quoting" from Lovecraft letters... but the quotes begin as something similar to familiar ones, but then go off into the blue. The same happens with quotations from stories, and from his Commonplace Book as well....

Frankly, it often struck me as very similar to distortions Derleth had (wittingly or otherwise) perpetrated, albeit with a different slant....

[brsrkrkomdy]

I checked the book again, and found translater's notes. It does seem very suspicious when the translator was unable to find sources for most of the Lovecraft quotes. Even Houellebecg himself was unable to provide one. Perhaps he made them up just to prove a point, assuming there's a point?

[brsrkrkomdy]

You should see the bibliography, from Houellebecg:Le Necronomicon (J'al lu or Belfond) a collective work (he says)HP Lovecraft, Lettres 1, (Christian Bourgois) right up until 1926 with a preface by Francis Lacassin.L. Sprague De Camp's Lovecraft biography. Houellebecg says De Camp did his homework well. (Really?)Now check Translator's biblio, and you'll find most of Lovecraft's correspondence in Arkham House editions.If Houllebecq had quoted anything from the French sources, they're probably very questionable sources for him.As for Akkadian, Joshi himself told the translator that Lovecraft never mention any such thing in his stories nor in his letters.Like I said before, interesting essay but it broke no new ground. As for the quotes, at least the readers won't be deceived by them considering they've ever read the translator's notes.