The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age. – H. P. Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu
Noah Berlatsky’s fantastic article on C.S. Lewis’ Space Trilogy has got me ruminating on the genre of Gothic Horror. Berlatsky is correct, of course, to point out that all good Science Fiction is an exploration of ourselves and our self-understanding, with ray-guns and aliens serving to place human beings in contexts so unfamiliar that we witness exactly how human nature breaks down when taken to the limits of human experience.
That said, I draw the line at horror or, more accurately, at Lovecraft. Berlatsky is correct to say that: "The gothic tradition on which much of sci-fi rests is about doubling; about recognizing one’s own twisted visage in the face of infinity." What makes Lovecraft different and, I might add, truly horrifying, is the way in which he systematically subverts this convention of the genre.
Certainly, Lovecraft’s works contain the obligatory shambling and degenerate pseudo-humans — made all the more transgressive for modern readers by the author’s overtly racist agenda. The really horrible creatures, on the other hand, are merely a physical manifestation of the existential horror associated with true understanding of man’s insignificance in a pitiless and meaningless universe. As such, they represent the shattering of the liberal dream of knowledge of and mastery over nature.
Imagine, then, the sheer magnitude of ironic distance required for we enlightened moderns to get a thrill out of Lovecraft’s spooky monsters while chuckling at his self-consistent and all-too-familiar worldview. Perhaps it’s the campiness that saves us — any message is easier to ignore when contained in prose as overwrought and baroque as Lovecraft’s. Nevertheless, the fundamental point remains — all horror is a series of footnotes to staring into the black abyss of space and knowing that nothing human is staring back.
December 29th, 2008 | 4:24 pm
the shattering of the liberal dream of knowledge of and mastery over nature.
Liberal, I take it, in the broader Enlightenment sense in which many conservatives identify themselves as liberal. It’s worth saying that when we say knowledge, here, we might as well say form, and in any particular direction you want to take it– if you’re more leftist, you might say language, if you’re more rightist, you might say tradition. Great post.
December 29th, 2008 | 10:13 pm
Yes, good old H.P. and his pal, August Derleth of Arkham House fame. Kept me up many a night, under the covers reading by the flashlight as the old house creaked and groaned. But, I’d didn’t think the fear was due to my “existential horror associated with true understanding of man’s insignificance…” as much as it was those damned daemons, particularly the one in the bell tower at old St. Al’s church on 6th St.
Anyone remember Rev. Whitehead’s story “Cassius?”
December 29th, 2008 | 11:54 pm
Oh yes, I remember “Cassius;” sort of a Dunwich Horror tale without the occult trappings. I understand that Whitehead’s work is being reprinted, which is certainly good tidings for horror buffs. And, like yourself, I didn’t find Lovecraft terrifying because of his nihilist philosophy, but because of the terrific monsters. “The Haunter of the Dark” was certainly one of my great scares. Others include “The Colour out of Space,” “The Call of Cthulhu,” “The Dunwich Horror,” “The Rats in the Walls,” and the much-maligned but quite effective “Thing on the Doorstep.”
December 30th, 2008 | 2:36 am
the shattering of the liberal dream of knowledge of and mastery over nature
But this is the modernist dream, and, especially, the conservative evangelical dream:
“Fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” — Genesis 1
The postmodernist doesn’t deceive himself with this fiction.
December 30th, 2008 | 6:34 am
JB, you wouldn’t have a reference on where Whitehead’s stories are being re-published would you?
BTW, a small house in Canada is doing reprints on olde horror fiction, including Russell Kirk’s contributions to the genre and some new stuff, but my goodness, I can’t find any decent new horror writers.
Now, why is that?
December 30th, 2008 | 9:59 am
Lovecraft is obsessed with human degeneration. Shadow Over Innsmouth, Shadow Out of Time, Colour Out of Space, and on and on; it’s all about human beings as hideous, twisted Other. That’s where the emotional core of his work is, it seems to me. Even that quote; it’s a vision of humanity as God (all-knowing) which frightens him.
December 30th, 2008 | 3:06 pm
H.P. had his issues, and probably needed counseling, if not a change of diet.
Also, I was incorrect in writing that there are no “decent new horror writers!”
After mulling the subject over I think that Cormac McCarthy is not only a “decent” horror writer-though not exactly “new”- but, perhaps, among the greats. For me “horror” fiction depicts both a physical and spiritual attack/threat. Stephen King is an excellent writer but one begins to yawn with all the blood and guts and very little else. Dean Knootz, on the other hand, always spins his tale within the dualism of good and evil, and lately within the context of modernity’s ideological distortions.
McCarthy, in his No Country for Old Men, does the great service of presenting the reader with Anton Chirguh, a man/demon who defines evil not only in his frequent and indifferent murders but in his desire to take from his victims and potential victims hope. Now that’s cold!
But what is really chilling is that McCarthy does not give us a protagonist who has an answer, for in one way or another they have no memory of God, they are all anthromorphic beings, they are “…the lonely, confused, and desperate people of a dying culture.”
December 30th, 2008 | 6:32 pm
Robert Cheeks: I agree that McCarthy is among the greats, although I don’t think that the horror genre is quite big enough to hold him. However, I do find that Judge Holden, from Blood Meridian, scares the stuffing out of the 30-year-old me as much if not more than Cthulu and the Yog-Sothoth did the 15-year old me. By the way, if you are looking for newish, decent horror writers I would highly recommend Thomas Ligotti, Gene Wolfe, Jeff Vandemeer, Jeffrey Thomas, and most especially, Kelly Link.
December 30th, 2008 | 6:51 pm
John, I haven’t read Blood Meridian yet; so many books, so little time. However, its on the list.
I’m trusting you that your recommendations have some concept of the spiritual? I recently reviewed a book of “horror” fiction, from England, where none of the author’s appeared to have ever dreamt of such things.
And, thanks!
December 31st, 2008 | 9:53 am
Hi Robert, I know what you mean by writers who never seem to have grasped the concept of spiritual horror – sometimes it can seem like a genre of blood, guts and gore and little else. I feel that Gene Wolfe is a particular kind of master of the spiritual horror story, and a great writer to boot, although his stories are pretty idiosyncratic and mix many sci-fi and fantasy elements as well, which might not appeal to some. A representative Wolfe story is “Paul’s Treehouse,” available here.
I haven’t yet read Dean Koontz, but your description of his work makes me curious – any suggestions on a good Koontz book to start with? And I’ve had a devil of a time trying to locate Henry Whitehead stories, either on the internet or in my local libraries, so I’ll be keeping my eyes peeled for this new edition JB mentions. Thanks!
December 31st, 2008 | 9:54 am
Oops, I didn’t include the link to the Wofle story in my last post. If you’re interested, you can find it here: http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/classics/classics_archive/wolfe3/wolfe31.html
December 31st, 2008 | 10:59 am
John, re: Koontz almost anywhere is fine but I’m enjoying his turn toward what may be best described as a critique of modernity so read my review of his latest here:
http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_do.php&type=book&id=4628&cn=140
(forgive me, I’m link challenged). Also, in case you’ve never tried them, the old English standbys, M.R. James and E.F. Benson, are a delight both in their stories and in their literacy. Also, there’s a wonderful apocalyptic novel titled, THe Earth Abides, written back in the forties or early fifties that your local library may have that reminds me, in some ways, of McCarthy’s The Road.
Rev. Whitehead should be in one or more of Derleth’s collections so check out Derleth’s (Arkham House) webpage.
Happy New Year!
December 31st, 2008 | 2:40 pm
Thanks again, Robert, and Happy New Year to you and yours as well!
December 31st, 2008 | 4:04 pm
Robert: M.R. James always struck me as even more effective than Lovecraft. Michael Chabon, in an introduction to a collection of James’ work, got close to the reason why I felt that way: In James’ work, over and over again, we get the sensation that at the center of the universe lies not a Lovecraftian chaos, but a strict and sinister logic — a logic which, nevertheless, we can guess at only dimly and can never even dream of fully comprehending. A rational thinker cannot help but be bemused at the suggestion that real rationality in fact lies forever beyond his reach.
Lovecraft’s effect comes from his suggestion that there are some things we were not meant to know. James’s suggestion is that we ALREADY don’t know even a millionth part of what we think we know. I’m not sure which is worse.
December 31st, 2008 | 7:01 pm
Jake, thanks for a remarkably interesting differentiation of MR’s work. It’s been a while since I read him, and yes I find him very much more “effective” then HP, but I’m puzzled by your comment that at the center of the Universe MR implies a “strict and sinister logic?”
I think you’re quite right that MR acknowledges that we are only “dimly” aware of the “logic” that lies beyond but I interpret that as his conceptualization of the mystery of the Divine. I also think, perhaps wrongly, that MR saw the “ghost” as a manifestation of God’s potency; a glimmer on the edges of what Edith Stein refers to as “the ontic birth of time” which occurs in the actualized present, in actual existence.
To be honest, as one who believes we exist in the in-between of being and not-being, that time is the “absolute present” that passes through the point of existential existence, and that our “being” is in a state of continually “becoming,” breaking upon nothingness (a rather fragile state-of-affairs to be sure) then at this place there is room for the pneumatic irruption, whether it be the experience of loving God, being loved by God, the daemonic, or the tap-tap-tap on the bedroom window late in the evening.
Happy New Year
December 31st, 2008 | 7:09 pm
Bob, you might take a look at this link: http://www.ash-tree.bc.ca/atp129passingofagod.htm Ash-Tree Press in BC Canada looks like they’re in the business of reprinting a lot of supernatural fiction.
Your power-user friend with high-speed internet connection.
Bill
December 31st, 2008 | 7:42 pm
Bill, it’s always nice to talk with a civilized member of the corporate community and I will check out AshTree, though its been a while and I owe those good hearted people a book review. Why don’t you jump into the conversation, seems all literary lately and I know of your fondness for a certain Canadian author?
BTW Happy, Healthy, and Prosperous New Year to you, Kay, and the girls.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact