Non-Lovecraft authors and the Mythos (pseudorant)
Posted: 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]
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]