I mean best HPL story, not just any Cthulhu Mythos story. I've only listed four, but these are some of my favorites.

Question:
Your favorite of these?

Choices:
At the Mountains of Madness
The Call of Cthulhu
The Shadow Over Innsmouth
The Colour Out of Space

 

Those are some difficult choices -- because each in their way were some of the best stories he ever wrote.

I mean, "The Call of Cthulhu" led to a very popular cultural phenomenon, while "At the Mountains of Madness" bordered on being very a science-fiction story in the sense that he tried to start from the familiar and move into the utterly fantastic and horrifying.

"The Shadow Over Innsmouth" was creepy ... and "The Colour Out of Space" was very much a science-fiction story of the most horrifying kind in its prospects. I think out of all of them, "The Colour Out of Space" was the one that scared me the most because, at least in my mind, it could very well happen.

As for me, my favourite Lovecraft stories are "The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath," "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward," "The Thing at the Doorstep" and the story I relate to the most "The Silver Key" starring Randolph Carter.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mythos,

I'd go with Dream-Quest as well, if it were an option. Out of those listed, as pure short story - readability in a single sitting, clear and concise story, definitive ending - and as horror, I have to go with The Shadow Over Innsmouth.

I keep reading stuff (Gaiman, Mignola and the mental Illuminatus boys) that have been influenced by Lovecraft. So I picked up a set of the 3 omnibus books and I'm working my way through his stuff this year.

So far I've only read At the Mountains of Madness. I'll vote when I'm better read.

I would also like to add "The Shadow Out of Time" to this list. If I had any doubt that Lovecraft's scope of horror was limited, this story completely shattered any such preconception.

I know that there are probably better stories than those I've listed, but I'm trying to keep the statistics between those four, which are currently my favorite HPL stories. So please don't wait for me to add more on.
The Shadow Over Innsmouth winning currently. 100%. I was surprised by how much easier it was to get through. I like his work, but it's almost as if he's trying to take a purely observative point of view. At the Mountains of Madness is good, but, as much of a slacker as I sound like, it's feels like a long read.
Very deppressing, tragic life. Little self confidence. Died young. According to China Mieville's introduction to AtMoM, he supported Hitler (before the Holocaust). He didn't become famous until after he died.

Also, I liked "Dreams in the Witch-House." Just before I forget.

quote:

Originally posted by Mythos:
Also, I liked "Dreams in the Witch-House." Just before I forget.

Personally, I didn't like it so much, but it was much more accessable, in that it was easier to read in comparison to some of his other stuff.
Any Lovecraft fan should pick up Winged Death.

How do you think he compares to more contemporary authors, such as Gaiman?
Although there are many stories from Lovecraft that I really enjoy and appreciate, I will generally take a story with more characterization and dialogue. And there's something so dispassionate and lifeless that comes everytime I read him. I always put this aside, but it really seems to say something about him.

I think that in general, Lovecraft has a very ornamental writing style. It uses a lot of what my teachers liked to call "heightened diction." It is very stylistically Victorian writing in that sense, or at least from what I understand of Victorian fictional writing.

He's very sexless as writer -- or at least he introduces or alludes to it in a very inhuman, alien and disturbing way outside the little space of rationality he allows (and often biological processes of any kind are between alien and inhuman creatures in his works anyway). Lovecraft has this very precise and logical frame with regard to discussing the biological and chemical processes of things, and even the physical details in his works.

But also, in a more emotional sense, there is little about relationships. The closest I've seen are mentor, almost paternal relationships -- especially in "The Strange Case of Charles Dexter Ward," but that is pretty much the depth of any character relationships or tenderness that you'll find in his works I'm afraid.

I don't think he is dispassionate. I think he can be, as narrator, but often that is part of the "rational base" he's forming. Because if you really think about it, that rationality is the only stable foundation throughout the worlds he creates. The rest of his work is all about terror and the unseen and things so beyond that little narrow rational sphere he can't even describe it (which, in its own way and by the allusions he makes to it -- through his little hints, is a plot device all on its own).

As to how he compares to others, I'm not entirely sure, but certainly I find that most authors these days do not use much in the way of "heightened diction." It might be different for fantasy writers though. Certainly, Alan Moore is not afraid of becoming verbose and heavily descriptive. And Neil too is not afraid of using big words.

I find the difference between Neil and Lovecraft are both very clear, and yet at the same time they have similarities that intersect. For instance, while Lovecraft is much more verbose and often has lines and concluding sentences that can hit you upside the head (and often in italics), he and Neil are really good at hinting on what is there or what could possibly be out there in the dark and the fantastic. It's like a magician's trick, I find. You perform it, and make the effects clear, but it is the most successful when you don't reveal everything. Just a hint of it.

I mean, Neil can be pretty clear too. Often, his prose is more clear and concise. It can be very concrete. Likewise, he can easily write like H.P. Lovecraft and has done so. The man was one of his influences after all. But what I like about Neil Gaiman is how he can make a character's dream more terrifying and more descriptive in that terror, while in that same character's waking life he can have someone they know come back from the dead, and make it seem perfectly natural -- as though it happens everyday.

I think that he and Lovecraft touch the same vein when they do that -- when Lovecraft hints on the formless horrors and wonders out there, and when Neil intermixes both with a realistic world setting.

But Neil is different too in the fact that he does not avoid sex and relationships, and does not make them alien or purely masculine things. There is a lot more variety of narration, and characterization in Neil's worlds than in Lovecraft's -- that and an ease of storytelling that is his voice alone. Whereas Lovecraft is very much grandiose in this fantasy, and rational and analytical in his realism. His narrators also sound very much like each other, as though they are really almost the same exact persona each time.

I still don't think I've entirely captured everything I wanted to say here, and I have probably gone on entirely too long as is. But these are the thoughts that came to mind when you asked these questions. It's interesting to think about.

I apologize. Dispassionate was a weak choice of words on my part. He wasn't dispassionate about what he was writing.
Your post was very interesting, and I concur with what you have stated.

Only read Call of Cthulhu, since my Lovecraft: Tales book has a lot of stories, and I'm reading it from left to right, front to back. The other 3 are in the far right section of the book. :/

quote:

Originally posted by Mw/NNrules:
I apologize. Dispassionate was a weak choice of words on my part. He wasn't dispassionate about what he was writing.
Your post was very interesting, and I concur with what you have stated.

No, no need to apologize. I knew what you were saying. I don't think he was dispassionate at all about what he was writing. I think that it was a tone that his narrators would often adopt, while the content is something else entirely. A lot of this dispassion quickly erodes into disquiet and horror of course.

But I'm glad you wrote that question, because it allowed me to articulate some things about some of my favourite authors together in one place.

To be honest, it's hard to read an entire oeuvre of stories based on nervousness around moisture, foreigners and the hidden without coming to the conclusion that Lovecraft had some serious relationship issues.

I chose Mountains because I've always been a sucker for archaelogical science fiction.

And SUPER props to Mythos (and his teachers) for using the word 'diction' correctly. Coming from acting training you hear that word mashed and stomped on through incorrect usage daily.

quote:

Originally posted by Mythos:
It uses a lot of what my teachers liked to call "heightened diction."