Transcribe
Translate
Acolyte, v. 2, issue 3, whole no. 7, Summer 1944
Page 16
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
SHOP TALK: A LETTER TO THE ACOLYTE by E. Hoffman Price -o0o- Without intending any disrespect to H. P. Lovecraft or to the tastes of his many admirers, I must say that I can go for "unnameable" stuff just so long. That I can read it at all is a supreme tribute to HPL as a craftsman. And on top of it all, he did create remarkably faithful and sound mundane backgrounds and personalities. I prefer the weird yarn which is keyed to earth's problems. That is, I am almost totally lacking in that sense of cosmic terror which is required either to write or to enjoy the type of yarn in which he specialized. I do not for a moment condemn or look down on those who do have a taste for cosmic horror--no more than does my color-blind buddy ridicule my taste for Persian carpets, of which I have a modest, yet diverse, collection. HPL once asked me, "But don't you shudder and ask, can these things really be?" We'd been discussing Arthur Machen, cosmic horror, etc., in Providence, on July 5, 1933. I said: "Frankly, no. I read Machen with interest, yest; I read your works with the keenest interest--because of the style, the settings, the personalities, the flavor, the workmanship--but I simply do not get anything resembling any sense of horror. I sincerely and deeply admire 'Pickman's Model', I have re-read it many a time--but without a hint of a shiver. I've re-read 'Cthulhu', enjoyed it each time, but no horror." He gave up. I wasn't disparaging him or his ideal of fiction, and he never disparaged my aims. Neither of us could have been quite so silly and childish. He did disparage--in an impersonal and amiable way--portions of one of my yarns, because the yarn was not a good example of its type; just as I shook my head sadly at one of his, and on the same grounds. Not because it was a story of mood instead of a story of action, but because it was not well done as a yarn of mood--just as mine had been poorly done as a yarn of action. Neither disparaged the other's aim. Whatever infrequent and mild criticism--of the most impersonal sort--HPL and I exchanged, was leveled at that story in which the author had not achieved his aim. To belittle the author's aim is something else. The criterion we had was, is this good for its kind? Not, is this a good kind? Did the author achieve his purpose. Not, was his purpose right or wrong? As a broad generality, I say that fans tend to bigotry, to self-centeredness, to setting up a one-man criterion of excellence, and then feeling that all other readers should accept the same criterion. Why that pontifical attitude which Fort terms "exclusionism?" The Christiam faith has many splendid aspects--but its damning all other faiths and arrogantly presuming to "covert" the "heathen" is what makes it, to me, offensive. I greatly admire the Moslem faith, and find but one fault: the same one I charge to the Christian. If not converting infidels, then the sharp line of demarcation, the feeling of superiority to the infidel. Judaism--more of the same: the elect, and then the gentiles. All of a piece with Hitler and his herrenvolk! The Chinaman is the only civilized person extant. He doesn't believe that anything as personal as belief is worth arguing about! The Chinese are the only major group who have abstained from persecutions of a religious nature. Hinduism is as pernicious (far more so, in fact!) as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism in its exclusionistic arrogance. The Buddhists come closest to being free of that arrogance. We need more Buddhistic influence among our fans. -- 16 --
Saving...
prev
next
SHOP TALK: A LETTER TO THE ACOLYTE by E. Hoffman Price -o0o- Without intending any disrespect to H. P. Lovecraft or to the tastes of his many admirers, I must say that I can go for "unnameable" stuff just so long. That I can read it at all is a supreme tribute to HPL as a craftsman. And on top of it all, he did create remarkably faithful and sound mundane backgrounds and personalities. I prefer the weird yarn which is keyed to earth's problems. That is, I am almost totally lacking in that sense of cosmic terror which is required either to write or to enjoy the type of yarn in which he specialized. I do not for a moment condemn or look down on those who do have a taste for cosmic horror--no more than does my color-blind buddy ridicule my taste for Persian carpets, of which I have a modest, yet diverse, collection. HPL once asked me, "But don't you shudder and ask, can these things really be?" We'd been discussing Arthur Machen, cosmic horror, etc., in Providence, on July 5, 1933. I said: "Frankly, no. I read Machen with interest, yest; I read your works with the keenest interest--because of the style, the settings, the personalities, the flavor, the workmanship--but I simply do not get anything resembling any sense of horror. I sincerely and deeply admire 'Pickman's Model', I have re-read it many a time--but without a hint of a shiver. I've re-read 'Cthulhu', enjoyed it each time, but no horror." He gave up. I wasn't disparaging him or his ideal of fiction, and he never disparaged my aims. Neither of us could have been quite so silly and childish. He did disparage--in an impersonal and amiable way--portions of one of my yarns, because the yarn was not a good example of its type; just as I shook my head sadly at one of his, and on the same grounds. Not because it was a story of mood instead of a story of action, but because it was not well done as a yarn of mood--just as mine had been poorly done as a yarn of action. Neither disparaged the other's aim. Whatever infrequent and mild criticism--of the most impersonal sort--HPL and I exchanged, was leveled at that story in which the author had not achieved his aim. To belittle the author's aim is something else. The criterion we had was, is this good for its kind? Not, is this a good kind? Did the author achieve his purpose. Not, was his purpose right or wrong? As a broad generality, I say that fans tend to bigotry, to self-centeredness, to setting up a one-man criterion of excellence, and then feeling that all other readers should accept the same criterion. Why that pontifical attitude which Fort terms "exclusionism?" The Christiam faith has many splendid aspects--but its damning all other faiths and arrogantly presuming to "covert" the "heathen" is what makes it, to me, offensive. I greatly admire the Moslem faith, and find but one fault: the same one I charge to the Christian. If not converting infidels, then the sharp line of demarcation, the feeling of superiority to the infidel. Judaism--more of the same: the elect, and then the gentiles. All of a piece with Hitler and his herrenvolk! The Chinaman is the only civilized person extant. He doesn't believe that anything as personal as belief is worth arguing about! The Chinese are the only major group who have abstained from persecutions of a religious nature. Hinduism is as pernicious (far more so, in fact!) as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism in its exclusionistic arrogance. The Buddhists come closest to being free of that arrogance. We need more Buddhistic influence among our fans. -- 16 --
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
