Non-Lovecraft authors and the Mythos (pseudorant)

Jehar · Post by **Jehar** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 2:03 am

As I wade through my volumes of Lovecraft, I often visit the Wiki to cross-reference some factoid or curiosity of mine. Great resource.
Alas, much of the information on Lovecraft has become hopelessly imbued with the influence and material of (gasp) *other authors*. I realize that many have taken the 'Mythos' (a non-Lovecraftian term in it's own, though a useful one) and added their own creative license to it.
I am all for this kind of thing, but when it gets to the point where these, dare I say, fan fictions are taken nearly as seriously as the original material, I get a little offended.
One could argue and counterpoint with examples of Star Wars' "Expanded Universe", which has many authors other than Lucas having fun with the creative expanses.
Yet, one of the appeals of Lovecraft's writings are... well, Lovecraft himself. They are directly sculpted by the horribly unique nature of his mind, and even provide insight to his character if you have the notion to look for it. And let's face it: Lovecraft is not around to defend his work, the way Lucas can.

I tend to blame Derleth (shields up) for some of this. He took some aspects of Lovecraft and sculpted them in ways that I am sure he would have objected to. Morally, I can agree with Derleth in more points than I could with Lovecraft, but I believe he took some things way too far. Adding his own dieties, assumptions, and nuances changed much about the outlook of the Mythos philosophy. As far as I can see, Derleth did not make much effort to seperate his ideas from Lovecraft's.

Today, the Wiki can be a gross intermingling of other author's works with a scattering of pure Lovecraft. As a creative universe, I have no objections to playing in the Mythos (especially when it comes to roleplaying), but when it becomes difficult to discern canon from fandom, I see things as having been taken too far.

I guess my big wish would be to have more effort put into helping people tell Lovecraft from, say, Derleth; as opposed to this harsh intermingling we have now.

[/soapbox]

Jesus Prime · Post by **Jesus Prime** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 12:25 pm

Derleth's a fuck. A stupid, rash fuck.
And August, I mean that in the nicest way possible!

But you're right. I concur entirely.

E.A. Lovecraft · Post by **E.A. Lovecraft** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:34 pm

I tend to blame Derleth

It's a good tendency to have.

Jesus Prime · Post by **Jesus Prime** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 5:02 pm

You're not a real Mythos buff until you do.

Post by **Aleister** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:47 pm

I disagree

I think you can be a fan of Derleth as well, as long as you understand the difference between Lovecraft's Mythos (unexplained, mysterious, outer-worldly, and chaotic) and Derleth's (good v. evil - among other things).

To the average person though, sure, the work done by Derleth and several other authors (as well as many modern day ones) certainly cloud the realities of Lovecraft himself, but has there ever been any time when Lovecraft's work was not surrounded by falsities?

Since we are such big Lovecraft fans, just like fans of most anything, we want others to know what we know - the real facts, inspirations for work, realities behind it (or lack thereof), because we want to share the love of the work.

This does not mean that we cannot appreciate the work of inspired authors (or else this site might not exist - at least not the modern day stuff). It is easy to single out Derleth because he is perhaps the most well known of those inspired by his work.

Jehar · Post by **Jehar** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 7:54 pm

I thought I made it clear enough that I am not opposed to Derleth and other authors playing in the Mythos, it's just that there are times when it's difficult to segregate the 'pure' from the 'expanded' material. My beef with Derleth lies not in his writings per se, but his somewhat slimy attempts to converge it with Lovecrafts own work.

On other issues though, I see Derleth as invaluable to keeping the name Lovecraft from going extinct, and I appreciate him as such.

As I stated before, one of the appealing things about Lovecraft's works lies in the opportunity to peer into his psyche, and I am sure none of you will deny that this plays an invaluable part in why we read Lovecraft. Marring this with other fandoms just rubs me the wrong way.

In short: "Write whatever you want; I will probably enjoy it. Just make sure you seperate yourself from the canon."

JJ Burke · Post by **JJ Burke** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:26 pm

getting to know the writer's inner personality is something you can do with just about any piece of literature, if you were so inclined.

what i appreciate more about hpl was his breaking of ground in a time when horror/fantasy fiction was largely corny, cookie-cutter type stuff (a condition that remains today, as if i have to remind anyone).

all i need to know about his private psyche is that he was somehow compelled to push his imagination beyond the confines of traditional storytelling, and extend the range of what fiction can do.

i'm sure he was a fascinating fellow.. but the stories are enough for me

nortonew · Post by **nortonew** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 9:24 pm

For a long time, I didn't even realize that there were any other Cthulhu mythos stories other than what Lovecraft wrote. At one point, I had supposedly read everything that Lovecraft had ever written, and I was left wondering where everyone was coming up with this Hastur guy that was supposedly in the mythos.

Finally, I happened to stumble across Clark Ashton Smith and realized that there were more writers involved in the stories.

Personally, I think that stuff from writers in Lovecraft's contempory circle of friends should be considered "true" Mythos lore - mostly because Lovecraft considered it to be so.

However, I do have some problems with Derleth's stuff, despite the fact that he was one of Lovecraft's friends. Mostly, I'm under the impression that Derleth didn't entirely understand all of Lovecraft's stories.

In at least one case, it even appeared that Derleth didn't really seem to have a good grasp on something that he had written himself. So, its not too hard to imagine that he didn't totally "get" everything that Lovecraft was saying.

I've heard before that Derleth just tended to write too fast. He sometimes got sloppy and didn't really think things through.

E.A. Lovecraft · Post by **E.A. Lovecraft** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 11:32 pm

Jesus Prime wrote:You're not a real Mythos buff until you do.

1: "If you want to join the People's Front of R'lyeh, you have to really hate Derleth."
2: "I do!"
1: "Oh yeah? How much?"
2: "A lot."
1: "Right . . . you're in."

JJ Burke · Post by **JJ Burke** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:05 am

call me loretta

Jesus Prime · Post by **Jesus Prime** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 12:20 pm

E.A. Lovecraft wrote:
Jesus Prime wrote:You're not a real Mythos buff until you do.
1: "If you want to join the People's Front of R'lyeh, you have to really hate Derleth."
2: "I do!"
1: "Oh yeah? How much?"
2: "A lot."
1: "Right . . . you're in."

You sure it's not the R'lyehan People's Front?

Jehar · Post by **Jehar** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 1:42 am

Hell, they are a damn mark better than those Peoples Front of R'lyeh. Hmph. "Peoples Front of R'lyeh"... Horrible lot.

E.A. Lovecraft · Post by **E.A. Lovecraft** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:12 am

Splitter.

Jesus Prime · Post by **Jesus Prime** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:32 pm

He's not the Great Old One, he's a very naughty boy!

E.A. Lovecraft · Post by **E.A. Lovecraft** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:45 pm

Cthulhu: "Have I got a big tentacle, Mum?"

Cthulhu's Mom: "Stop thinking about sex!"

Cthulhu's: "I wasn't!"

Cthulhu's Mom: "You're always on about it. 'Will the deep ones like this? Will the deep ones like that? Is it too cyclopean? Is it too amorphous?'"