Transcribe
Translate
Fantasy Commentator, v. 1, issue 7, Summer 1945
Page 164
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
164 FANTASY COMMENTATOR pidity that discredits a major fantasy I am willing to believe imaginatively. In the preface of his Seven Famous Novels Wells comments to the general effect that a reader will willingly suspend disbelief in a major fantasy if it is surrounded by a prosaic, credible detail---or, I might add, unprosaic detail that is consistent and congruous. To cite an absurd example, we are willing to believe in manlike creatures on Mars, even with opposable thumbs, but when the Martians speak English, and it is rationalized that they do because "the course of their evolution was very similar to ours," I am ready for bed and dreams that, even if more grotesque, have a riper logic in them. The long and interesting letter which follows is from Robert Bloch: I'd like to comment briefly on "The Lord of R'lyeh," which makes several points and makes them well---but before rambling on, I must take the precaution of stating that what I say is not to be construed as either criticism or objection. But I am curiously impressed with the entire phenomenon of Lovecraft-appraisal. During the past two years, particularly, I've read scores of items concerning HPL's life, personality and works. And I see but a small fraction of the fan publications. Strange that he should be more alive in the minds of fandom eight years after his death that at any time during his actual existence... It took the accolade of book-publication, general critical recognition and successful reprinting to awaken even Lovecraft-aficionados to the man's literary importance. I can well remember when the really dyed-in-the-wool Lovecraft fan of the late twenties and early thirties was actually looked down upon by the lofty readers of Astounding and Wonder Stories, to say nothing of the Weird Tales group which preferred "fast-action" authors. The Lovecraftophiles were then distinguished by their intensity rather than their numerical supremacy. But now (needless to point out the obvious reasons) the picture has changed. Everybody who knew him seems to have come out with an "I knew him when" piece...and those who didn't at least manage an "analysis" of the Master's works. Far be it from me to carp of cavil. I personally have enjoyed each and every bit---and it delights me to find such recognition (even belated and posthumous recognition) of his importance in the fantasy field. Still, I confess to a certain uneasiness as I contemplate the aggregate content of these articles. They tend, I fear, to place emphasis on aspects of Lovecraft's life and writings which obscure the man himself. There are many readers who never knew HPL through either personal correspondence or personal contact...many more who didn't even read his stories during his lifetime. They must therefore depend upon existing articles for a picture of the man and an interpretation of his literary efforts. And the picture is distorted. Too often the sincere attempts at reminiscence on the part of his social intimates and correspondents resolve inevitably into the presentation of a series of trivial anecdotes unconsciously emphasizing the pride of the narrator in his friendship with Lovecraft. And frequently the analyses display an erudition of the author at the expense of an accurate appraisal of his subject. For this reason I have never written a line about him for publication save for a brief, impulsive statement in Weird Tales immediately upon receiving news of his dead. For I too feel myself liable to unconscious bias. I did correspond with him, was a great admirer, and am proud of his friendship. Indeed, I must admit that his dedication of "The Haunter of the Dark" to me, and his use of me as a protagonist of that tale remains the high spot of my life to date---and
Saving...
prev
next
164 FANTASY COMMENTATOR pidity that discredits a major fantasy I am willing to believe imaginatively. In the preface of his Seven Famous Novels Wells comments to the general effect that a reader will willingly suspend disbelief in a major fantasy if it is surrounded by a prosaic, credible detail---or, I might add, unprosaic detail that is consistent and congruous. To cite an absurd example, we are willing to believe in manlike creatures on Mars, even with opposable thumbs, but when the Martians speak English, and it is rationalized that they do because "the course of their evolution was very similar to ours," I am ready for bed and dreams that, even if more grotesque, have a riper logic in them. The long and interesting letter which follows is from Robert Bloch: I'd like to comment briefly on "The Lord of R'lyeh," which makes several points and makes them well---but before rambling on, I must take the precaution of stating that what I say is not to be construed as either criticism or objection. But I am curiously impressed with the entire phenomenon of Lovecraft-appraisal. During the past two years, particularly, I've read scores of items concerning HPL's life, personality and works. And I see but a small fraction of the fan publications. Strange that he should be more alive in the minds of fandom eight years after his death that at any time during his actual existence... It took the accolade of book-publication, general critical recognition and successful reprinting to awaken even Lovecraft-aficionados to the man's literary importance. I can well remember when the really dyed-in-the-wool Lovecraft fan of the late twenties and early thirties was actually looked down upon by the lofty readers of Astounding and Wonder Stories, to say nothing of the Weird Tales group which preferred "fast-action" authors. The Lovecraftophiles were then distinguished by their intensity rather than their numerical supremacy. But now (needless to point out the obvious reasons) the picture has changed. Everybody who knew him seems to have come out with an "I knew him when" piece...and those who didn't at least manage an "analysis" of the Master's works. Far be it from me to carp of cavil. I personally have enjoyed each and every bit---and it delights me to find such recognition (even belated and posthumous recognition) of his importance in the fantasy field. Still, I confess to a certain uneasiness as I contemplate the aggregate content of these articles. They tend, I fear, to place emphasis on aspects of Lovecraft's life and writings which obscure the man himself. There are many readers who never knew HPL through either personal correspondence or personal contact...many more who didn't even read his stories during his lifetime. They must therefore depend upon existing articles for a picture of the man and an interpretation of his literary efforts. And the picture is distorted. Too often the sincere attempts at reminiscence on the part of his social intimates and correspondents resolve inevitably into the presentation of a series of trivial anecdotes unconsciously emphasizing the pride of the narrator in his friendship with Lovecraft. And frequently the analyses display an erudition of the author at the expense of an accurate appraisal of his subject. For this reason I have never written a line about him for publication save for a brief, impulsive statement in Weird Tales immediately upon receiving news of his dead. For I too feel myself liable to unconscious bias. I did correspond with him, was a great admirer, and am proud of his friendship. Indeed, I must admit that his dedication of "The Haunter of the Dark" to me, and his use of me as a protagonist of that tale remains the high spot of my life to date---and
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
