tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8470094.post111153035514127225..comments2024-03-18T16:55:31.971+00:00Comments on This Space: Refusing to grow up: on Banville on HouellebecqStephen Mitchelmorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01658772259307446873noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8470094.post-52423218398979261112011-05-01T13:22:14.439+01:002011-05-01T13:22:14.439+01:00There is a slant in Banville's Lovecraft bits ...There is a slant in Banville's Lovecraft bits that amounts to lying. The real reason why Lovecraft moved back to Providence was that he couldn't find work in New York, no matter how hard he tried. The real reason why he and his wife separated (never actually divorced), was that his wife lost her work in New York and got work elsewhere while Lovecraft continued his efforts to find work in New York. There is no evidence of an otherwise unhappy marriage.<br /><br />You have misunderstood the comment that there is something not really literary about Lovecraft's work. I don't recall exactly what Houellebecq meant (something about its effect being unlike anything else in literature), and Banville is of no help, but I do recall that's not what he meant. Elsewhere in his piece, Houellebecq pointed out that if Lovecraft was a bad stylist, then all that can be said is that style doesn't matter (since his works are nevertheless so effective).<br /><br />As for Lovecraft never growing up - a common criticism that Banville's piece dabbles in - well that certainly sounds like a terrible thing, not growing up. Imagine being an adult but never having grown up! It sounds awful, whatever the hell it means. I hope, at least, that these critics aren't putting the average spectator-sports watching beer-drinking pleb and his "philosophy" and supposed maturity (I suspect "happy adjustment to the prevailing social expectations" is what is meant) above Lovecraft. Accusations like these are always suspiciously vague, like they were some sort of evolved reactions to protect social cohesion that had lost their meaning and original function in a modern technological society, especially when applied to people who actually do work and generate tax income for the State, like Houellebecq.<br /><br />So what is good about Lovecraft's best works, his late works? The one quality that most impresses me is their authenticity. It's a rare quality, and it's a rare reader who can appreciate or even notice it. I don't know exactly why that is, but I suspect it has something to do with homo sapiens having evolved to be a social bullshitting animal, basically always a dozen steps removed from any reality. (Probably why they can vaguely but with apparent seriousness accuse a genius like Lovecraft of "not growing up" and refusing to be like them, never giving a second thought to what they're actually trying to communicate or what argument, if any, they're trying to make.)V. Aishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18419896377130115918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8470094.post-58410709756197037592008-08-10T10:29:00.000+01:002008-08-10T10:29:00.000+01:00i've waited a long time to be able to utter someth...i've waited a long time to be able to utter something like some of the things you say here. finally it happened. thank you, one of the mirrors of my own mind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8470094.post-1111674636074790902005-03-24T14:30:00.000+00:002005-03-24T14:30:00.000+00:00Reading Lovecraft To Borges.“Sometimes he’d make u...Reading Lovecraft To Borges.<BR/><BR/><BR/>“Sometimes he’d make use of the readings for his own writing. His discovery of a<BR/>ghost tiger in Kipling’s ‘The Guns of ‘Fore and ‘Aft,’ which he read shortly before<BR/>Christmas, led him to compose one of his last stories, ‘Blue Tigers;’ Giovanni<BR/>Papini’s ‘Two Images in a Pond’ inspired his ‘August 24, 1982,’ a date which was<BR/>still in the future; his irritation with Lovecraft (whose stories he has me start and<BR/>abandon half a dozen times) made him create a ‘corrected’ version of a Lovecraft<BR/>story and publish it in Dr Brodie’s report. Often he’d ask me to write something down<BR/>onthe endpaper pages of the book we were reading - a chapter reference or a thought.<BR/>I don’t know how he made use of these, but the habit of speaking of a book behind its<BR/>back became mine too”<BR/><BR/>Alberto Manguel. ‘A History Of Reading.’ Page 18.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8470094.post-1111585208327078272005-03-23T13:40:00.000+00:002005-03-23T13:40:00.000+00:00" I can’t remember the title but it reminded me of..." I can’t remember the title but it reminded me of Borges’ The God’s Script."<BR/><BR/>I'm not surprised. Borges certainly did acknowledge Lovecraft as an influence.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03316636310435451222noreply@blogger.com