Welcome back to the Lovecraft reread, in which two modern Mythos writers get girl cooties all over old Howard’s sandbox, from those who inspired him to those who were inspired in turn.
Today we’re looking at Robert Howard’s “The Black Stone,” first published in the November 1931 issue of Weird Tales. Spoilers ahead.
“Look!” He drew me to a latticed window and pointed up at the fir-clad slopes of the brooding blue mountains. “There beyond where you see the bare face of that jutting cliff stands that accursed Stone. Would that it were ground to powder and the powder flung into the Danube to be carried to the deepest ocean! Once men tried to destroy the thing, but each man who laid hammer or maul against it came to an evil end. So now the people shun it.”
Summary
Unnamed narrator (our friend UN) first reads of the Black Stone in Von Junzt’s Unaussprechlichen Kulten (1839): he owns a fantastically rare copy of the unexpurgated German edition. The eldritch glamour of this “Black Book” was enhanced by the author’s mysterious death at “taloned” hands. His body was found amidst the shredded pages of his latest manuscript; after a friend pieced the pages together and read them, he burned the work and cut his own throat. So not the best of critical reactions.
Von Junzt described the Black Stone as a sinister monolith on a mountain in Hungary. He scoffed at the theory it was the product of the Hunnish invasion, implying it was far older. UN investigates further and learns the Stone’s near a remote village called Stregoicavar, which translates roughly as “Witchtown.” When UN connects the Stone with Justin Geoffrey’s “People of the Monolith,” written during the mad poet’s travels in Hungary, he decides to vacation in Stregoicavar.
On the way he passes the battlefield of Schomvaal, where Count Boris Vladinoff held off the Turkish army led by Selim Bahadur. While perusing—and freaking out over—a parchment captured from dead Selim, Vladinoff was crushed by falling castle walls, where he lies still.
Stregoicavar turns out to be a sleepy mountain-nestled town resettled by Magyar-Slavs after the Turks massacred the original inhabitants, whom they describe as a pagan bunch of dubious racial mixture rumored to steal babies and girls from the lowlanders. UN settles at an inn. The host remembers Geoffrey as a queer-acting mumbler who looked too long at the Black Stone, so he’s not surprised to hear Geoffrey died screaming in a madhouse—or that his verse is now famous. His own nephew had the misfortune to fall asleep near the stone and has been troubled by nightmares ever since. But worse than sleeping near the monolith would be to visit it on Midsummer’s Eve, when monstrous sights shatter the brains of the overcurious.
UN hikes up into the mountains to see the Stone: sixteen feet tall, of an unknown black mineral, carved with strange characters. UN is familiar with all known hieroglyphs but can’t decipher these; still, they remind him of characters on a certain huge rock he once examined in Yucatan. The innkeeper’s nephew describes the one clear image from his nightmares: the Stone not as an isolated monolith but as a spire on a colossal castle. The village schoolmaster supplies the original name of Stregoicavar: Xuthltan, a barbarous-sounding name that shouldn’t have belonged to any aboriginal language of the region.
Impulse drives UN to the Stone on Midsummer’s Eve. Moonlight gives the cliffs below it the look of cyclopean battlements. No wind stirs the forest through which he passes, but a rustling and whispering still pursues him. He settles on a rock at the edge of the Stone clearing; as midnight approaches, he hears eerie pipes, the monolith seems to sway, and he falls asleep.
Whether in dream or actuality, he opens his eyes to find the clearing packed with squat, low-browed people dressed in animal hides. They sway to a hag-beaten drum. A brazier before the monolith exhales yellow smoke. Next to it lie a bound and naked girl and a young baby. The swayers chant, but UN hears them only dimly, as if they’re far from him in space—or time.
A naked young woman dances wildly around the clearing. She’s pursued by a wolfhead-masked priest, who lashes her with fir switches until she crawls bleeding to the monolith, which she covers with fierce kisses. The worshippers attack each other with teeth and nails. The priest brains the stolen baby on the monolith, then tears open its body to feed the brazier with its blood. Triumph! A bloated toad-like being appears atop the Stone, its huge unblinking eyes mirroring “all the unholy things and vile secrets that sleep in cities under the sea and skulk from the light of day in the blackness of primordial caverns.” The priest offers this creature the bound girl, over whom it slobbers lustfully. At which penultimate horror, UN mercifully faints.
In the morning he revives, to find no sign of the night’s bloody orgy. Did he dream, or did he experience a vision of ghostly votaries and their ghost-god, the replay of past events? Desperate to find out, he goes back to the battlefield of Schomvaal and unearths Count Vladinoff. Among the old bones is that parchment Selim Bahadur wrote after his purge of Xuthltan. The Turkish scribe-warrior describes the foul sorceries of its inhabitants, the cleansing of their valley with clean steel, and the final slaughter of a monstrous toad-like being in a cavern near the Black Stone. Verifying this account is an amulet-effigy of the beast, which Selim tore from the dying high priest.
UN tosses parchment and effigy into the Danube. He remains haunted–not by fear of the ghost-god and its worshippers, for they’re long-gone. No, it’s the realization that such things once existed—that such things might still exist in dark corners of our world—that shakes him. The Black Stone is a key to truths too terrible to contemplate, and UN prays no one will ever try to uproot it and its mysteries.
What’s Cyclopean: For a prototypically pulp writer, Howard at first keeps his adjectives thoroughly under control. Probably not accidentally, the prose gets purpler in proximity to the monolith (“lurid tongues of flame,” etc.). And in the midsummer moonlight, the cliffs around it appear like “cyclopean and Titan-reared battlements jutting from the mountain-slope.” Then later, the stone is “like a spire on a cyclopean black castle.”
The Degenerate Dutch: The original “Magyar-Slavic” inhabitants of Stregoicavar intermingled with a “degraded aboriginal race” according to the current inhabitants. Plus they sacrificed other people’s babies to the Monolith. Good thing they got wiped out by bloodthirsty Turks, right? Right?
Mythos Making: Howard includes several Lovecraftian shout-outs, even aside from the signature cyclopeans. Here is the terrible sound of pipes, and mention of vile undersea cities. There’s a narrator motivated only by his own inarticulate motivation, regretting every step. And over this way… Tsathoggua, perhaps?
Libronomicon: First appearance of Von Junzt’s Unspeakable Cults. Poet Justin Geoffrey also makes a debut. Dostmann’s Remnants of Lost Empires appears to be another creation, although a book of the same name by one P.V.N. Meyers was published in 1875. Other inventions include Dornly’s Magyar Folklore, Larson’s Turkish Wars, and an extremely alarming parchment.
Madness Takes Its Toll: The mad poet Justin Goeffrey died screaming in a madhouse, and let’s all take a moment to be grateful for 21st century medicine with all its imperfections. In general, contact with the Black Stone requires a Sanity Check.
Ruthanna’s Commentary
Unlike Klein’s disappointed acolyte, Robert Howard shows no shame in imitating (and perhaps ragging, just a little) his mentor. Or in building on the cyclopean foundation he’s created. There are dozens of little shout-outs, but it’s the geekily detailed imaginary library, and the pitch-perfect narrator, that clearly mark this as a Mythos piece.
The library is delightful, and Von Juntz a vivid enough creation that Lovecraft took him in with open arms. The history of Unspeakable Cults is laid out in staid academic natter. And, staidly, it gives all the details: no bibliographic history is complete, after all, without a few horrific deaths.
And the narrator. Oh, he’s so annoying! Make no mistake, I appreciate his obnoxious mixture of Indiana Jones, Captain Kirk, and hapless Mythosian professor. Yes, I will go visit the monolith that causes people to suffer from lifelong nightmares, because subconscious prompting compels me. Perfect plan for a summer vacation! Let me climb the thing and try to read it—I am familiar with all hieroglyphic traditions! Wait, I went somewhere on my summer vacation, and now it just happens to be Midsummer? You don’t say! I’ll just nip up and visit the Monolith again, and I’ll even bring my dice for a convenient sanity check. What a scary dream. Let me just follow this hunch that is utterly dependent on ten coincidences to work—yup, there’s the manuscript, and it contains everything I need to confirm my dream’s veracity. Damn, I wish I hadn’t read that. Now I have anxiety.
Love it.
In contrast to all the imaginary books, Margaret Murray’s The Witch Cult in Western Europe, published 10 years earlier, does not appear in this story. It sure lurks in the background, though. Murray’s treatise ‘documents’ an ancient fertility cult with a horned god, taught to Europeans by mysterious small aboriginal folk who form the basis of legends about “little people.” It’s pretty well dismantled by this point from an archaeological standpoint, although it contributes to the origin myths for any number of strains of Neopaganism. But Howard’s cult isn’t quite Murray’s: hers was foundational to civilization rather than destructive. And involved less sacrifice to inhuman toad gods.
Yeek. About that sacrifice. Howard’s depiction of the Monolithic ritual is vivid, and vividly horrible. His ancient witch cultists are literally baby-killers, and he doesn’t flinch in his descriptions, at least not until the violence is just about to shift to sex. And on one level, that works. There’s something to be said for overt and blatant horror, undeniable and directly witnessed. Not everything needs to be deniable, maybe you just hallucinated or made it up, or full of ambiguous hints.
But then, one of my favorite things about Lovecraft is the places where he does make his narrators unreliable, where their accusations against the monsters fall just short of definitive witness or evidence. At some level, deeply repressed, he harbors sympathy for the alien and monstrous—he’ll flail and scream about repulsive abominations, but oh-so-frequently there’s room for doubt. At some level, in a surprisingly large number of stories, he writes a world in which it’s pretty darn easy to track how the worm mage or the giant fish monster or the alien might see things differently.
But then, finally, Robert Howard comes back to the horror that really underlies all of Lovecraft: “Man was not always master of the earth—and is he now?” No. No he isn’t. Sweet dreams.
Anne’s Commentary
Herr Doktor Wolfie Freud’s more famous relation Sigmund probably never said that “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.” The idea that one can take objects fraught with symbolic meaning at face value was actually given a vivid if less pithy statement by Wolfie himself. After Lovecraft had his analyst friend read this story, Wolfie wrote in his journal: “Sometimes a monolith is just a monolith even if a naked woman is covering its base with hot, fierce kisses. Because, meh, sometimes it’s just too obvious, especially in the context of blood-soaked orgies depicted in high pulp style. Although that obliteration of the Child-Infant against the Father-Organ is provocative, as is the puffy toad thing on top. Also firry switches.”
Thank you, Herr Doktor, for giving me a mental image of “Firries,” perfectly normal people who like to dress up as evergreen trees and drop their needles in supermarket aisles. Ahem. So here we have the introduction and backstory for PMT (Primary Mythos Tome) Unaussprechlichen Kulten. Has anyone ever written a story in which it’s discovered that Von Junzt’s friend Alexis Ladeau didn’t really burn the great man’s final manuscript? If not, I call dibs. We’re also gifted with mad poet Justin Geoffrey, of whom poor Edward Derby was so fond. Oh, and wait, there’s the Xuthltan manuscript of Selim Bahadur! I bet it was written on water-proof parchment with indelible ink, and we all know how durable gold is. Someday a hapless fisherman on the Danube will hook that lacquered case and bring these treasures back to the light of modern day. More dibs.
Howard packs a lot of fond little Lovecraftian tropes and mannerisms into “Black Stone.” We have the unnamed narrator. Who’s a profound scholar of mythology, languages, hieroglyphics, et cetera, and who seems to be independently wealthy and free of familial obligations. Who, in spite of a scholarly lifestyle, is athletic enough to scale mountains and dig through stony ruins for artifacts long-undisturbed because no one else felt like shifting all those damn rocks. Oh, and who has a supersensitive nose for rare volumes and a nice penchant for giving their publication histories. And who faints conveniently, here just before things got too pornographic for the censors. And who wakes with a new and shivering apprehension of the insignificance of man in a vast cosmos of which he’s neither the only nor the greatest master.
There’s the presence of “cyclopean” and “Titan-reared” in a single sentence!
There’s a squishy primordial toad-beast, and what is that, anyhow? Maybe a spawn of Tsathoggua? Certainly not Tsathoggua itself, since mere humans can kill it.
There are aboriginal people of cryptic race and squat stature, whose loathsomely alien miens suggest an ancestry not entirely human.
However Howard’s tongue may be in his cheek, he keeps a straight enough face to chill. His witches’ sabbath is worthy of a Pickman’s brush, blatantly and nastily sado-erotic. Although he allows his central monstrosity to be destroyed, its destruction and that of its worshippers don’t truly cleanse the world of evil—UN realizes that the sheer scale of the Black Stone’s underpinnings implies plenty more eldritch evil where that toad came from.
Interesting that here the Muslims are the “heroes,” while the Christians cower in their lowlands even when their own children are abducted. The Stregoicavar innkeeper mentions that once men tried to destroy the Black Stone, but those who took hammer and maul to it met evil ends. I’m guessing the would-be destroyers were Selim Bahadur’s men?
Last note: The Stone is said to give an illusion of semi-transparency. That makes me think of the red meteorite of Preston and Child’s Ice Limit. This meteorite could also defend itself, reacting to any moisture, even the touch of a sweaty palm, with an energetic outburst. Maybe the application of metal to the Black Stone caused electric arcing or some such, which would have fried the would-be wreckers and given Selim plenty to write about!
Next week, we return to Innsmouth for August Derleth’s “The Shuttered Room.” (In what is clearly a nefarious plot, it doesn’t appear to be available online—sorry.)
Ruthanna Emrys’s neo-Lovecraftian novelette “The Litany of Earth” is available on Tor.com, along with the more recent but distinctly non-Lovecraftian “Seven Commentaries on an Imperfect Land” and “The Deepest Rift.” Winter Tide, a novel continuing Aphra Marsh’s story from “Litany,” will be available from the Tor.com imprint in Spring 2017. Ruthanna can frequently be found online on Twitter and Livejournal, and offline in a mysterious manor house with her large, chaotic household—mostly mammalian—outside Washington DC.
Anne M. Pillsworth’s short story. “The Madonna of the Abattoir” appears on Tor.com. Her first novel, Summoned, is available from Tor Teen along with the recently released sequel Fathomless. She lives in Edgewood, a Victorian trolley car suburb of Providence, Rhode Island, uncomfortably near Joseph Curwen’s underground laboratory.
And now I’m kind of wishing Universal had optioned this for a monster movie back in the 1930s. Although they would’ve had to significantly sanitize the events at the Black Stone proper.
The Satanism and sadism have lost their charms for me but there’s still a strong story here, even if it isn’t on the level of Howard’s best.
Weird Tales: The first appearance of “The Black Stone” came in November 1931, with Clark Ashton Smith’s “The Tale of Satampra Zeiros”. It was reprinted in November 1953, alongside August Derleth’s “The Disc Recorder”.
Serious Literature: “The Black Stone” made it into the Library of America in Peter Straub’s American Fantastic Tales: Terror and the Uncanny from Poe to the Pulps.
Lovecraft on Howard: from the Memoriam to Robert E. Howard:
“It is hard to describe precisely what made Mr. Howard’s stories stand out so sharply; but the real secret is that he himself is in every one of them, whether they were ostensibly commercial or not. He was greater than any profit-making policy he could adopt — for even when he outwardly made concessions to Mammon-guided editors and commercial critics, he had an internal force and sincerity which broke through the surface and put the imprint of his personality on everything he wrote.
…it always took some tinge of vitality and reality in spite of popular editorial policy—always drew something from his own experience and knowledge of life instead of from the sterile herbarium of dessicated pulpish standbys…
…No author—even in the humblest fields—can truly excel unless he takes his work very seriously; and Mr. Howard did just that even in cases where he consciously thought he did not.”
It had not escaped my notice: that once the re-read does A. Merritt, we will have covered all of the co-authors of “The Challenge from Beyond”.
Ms. Found in a Houdini Auction: A rediscovered manuscript of “The Cancer of Superstition” is going up for auction in early April: a more fragmentary version may be found in The Dark Brotherhood and Other Pieces. (Interesting how articles on this find don’t mention C. M. Eddy’s involvement…)
Today’s birthday: Sonia Greene (1883-1972).
Reread MVP: Herr Doktor Wolfie Freud, who needs to appear in a full-length story one of these days.
I don’t know what’s the Hungarian word for witch, but “Stregoicavar” sounds Italian, at least the beginning. So it’s a wee bit out of place. I wondered if the column was basalt, but in that case it wouldn’t be translucent. The scene of cruelty that took place, even if it was just in UN’s brain, was way over the top and didn’t impress me. I recall a graphic novel version of “The Festival” that incorporated the whipped-woman scene from this story; it didn’t enhance it any.
Wonder also now if there is any possible connection with that other Danube-set story, Blackwood’s “The Willows”. Try and listen to a certain Strauss waltz while reading that…I looked up that sector on Google Earth and it’s all surrounded with farmland now, if I recall rightly. Somehow I found that reassuring.
It should be Das Drachenhaus, not Der Drachenhaus. It’s Der Drache, but Das Haus, and the composite word gets its article from Haus, not Drache. Or is it supposed to be Der Drachenhausverlag? That would be correct, but the placement of the quotes is weird.
Why were the anchestors in the trees hairless? And how could they climb if they were blind?
The worshippers sound like neanderthals.
It’s a solid, pulpy Lovecraft pastiche. As Schuyler said, not one of REH’s best, but still very good. I am bothered by UN’s sudden realization that Midsummer Eve has arrived oh so coincidentally. It would have been better for that to have been part of his planning. My only other problem is not Howard’s fault, but rather Bill Ward’s. Whenever I encounter the name Vladinoff, my brain immediately substitutes Boris Badenov snarling “You sair it, buster!”
I think Anne is definitely on to something with von Juntz’s actually unburned manuscript. There are definite possibilities there (if nothing else, then a story directly about Ladeau and vJ’s death). This also puts me in mind of several posthumously or immediately prehumously burned MSS, such as Kafka’s and Richard Francis Burton’s.
@3 Angiportas: The name of the village could be Romanian. Temesvár (now Timosoara) is in Romania today, so the village name could be Romanian. Also, I was saving this for “The Willows”, but it you look at the Danube just below Bratislava, there are nature reserves on both sides of the river that could easily turn marshy when the river is in flood, as well as an area north of the main channel that looks like it could be what Blackwood is describing. That or a little farther south where the Danube forms the border between Slovakia and Hungary.
Edited to fix my geography.
This is the only REH I’ve actually read lawl. One story.
Damned good though, and I will have to check out more of his stuff.
@anne: “Firry switches” made me envision giants hitting each other with uprooted fir trees. Your image is amusing too.
@3 Angiportus: Google Translate says that the Hungarian word for “witch” is “boszorkány,” but “town” is “város.” So…half accurate?
“he burned the work and cut his own throat” that’s incredible. Why don’t we have reviewers of the capability.
If on the blurb it said by NYT reviewer “burned the review copy and cut own throat” I’d be first in line at the bookshop buy a copy.
Schuyler @@@@@2 – I think Herr Doktor Wolfie should indeed appear in full-length glory, perhaps in conjunction with von Junzt’s not-really-burned MS!
The A. Merritt story would appropriately be followed by the “Challenge” itself.
AeronaGreenjoy @@@@@7 – All I know is that Firries and canine Furries don’t play well together. Also that certain villages in Switzerland fear Christmas Eve, when packs of Firries hold nameless rituals in the mountain forests, clad only in tinsel and blood-red LED tree lights.
DemetriosX @@@@@5 & BarnesM @@@@@ 8 – I’m now tempted to include M. Ladeau in the fourth book of my series, an immortal critic who really does burn ARCs and cut his throat, but being immortal, he gets better. The irony is that the books over which he sheds the most blood become the biggest bestsellers. They say his copy of TWILIGHT hasn’t stopped its maddeningly slow dripping yet….
@6: You have many great stories ahead of you, full of legendary heroes and horrors. Del Rey’s two-volume The Best of Robert E. Howard (Crimson Shadows and Grim Lands) contains a strong selection of his work.
@9: His attempts to sublimate the death drive into constructive literary criticism make me think that M. Ladeau needs a session with Doktor Wolfie, though it remains to be seen whether this would make his condition better or worse…
An entertaining mythos tale, though not at the level of REH’s best work (“Beyond the Black River,” “Worms of the Earth”).
Howard and the Turks: Well, REH’s stance tended towards the unfavorable. The Armenian genocide seems to have made a lasting impression on him:
“Say what you will, wholesale massacre is never justifiable-I mean the slaughter of helpless people. Except in the following case: when a nation has over and over again proved itself to be absolutely without mercy, as in the case of the Turks with the Armenians, it is in my mind no crime but a duty of the nations to exterminate them, to destroy all men capable of bearing [arms] and to scatter the helpless people far and wide, not in barren exile to die, but to be absorbed by other races.”
Totally off-topic:
From Victor LaValle’s interview with NPR about his Ballad of Black Tom (a re-telling/re-interpretation of HPL’s “Horror at Red Hook”):
“And in a way, I was naive and I could overlook what should have been blatant clues about the uglier sides of H.P. Lovecraft’s personality and his ideas. Like, for instance, the story where he has a cat named [expletive] Man, and he calls him that 19 times in this really short story and takes great pleasure in talking about kicking this cat and all this stuff.”
What story is he talking about? “The Rats in the Walls?” That has a cat named ****** Man in it, but the cat was named after HPL’s own much-beloved childhood pet. And I don’t recall the narrator abusing the cat. Perhaps he’s confusing “The Rats in the Wall” with Poe’s “The Black Cat?”
“And then he has other things other things – he has a poem that’s pretty famous. He has a longer story – “The Case Of Charles Dexter Ward” – that gets into some ugly stuff. “
The poem (which I won’t bother to name here), is, of course, quite offensive, but I’m not quite sure why he’s chosen to single out The Case of Charles Dexter Ward. Its villain, after all, is the thoroughly Anglo-Saxon Joseph Curwen, and the racist content is very peripheral. If someone had asked me to name an anti-Black HPL story, I would have selected the “Six Shots by Moonlight” section in Herbert West- Reanimator.
@10:” You have many great stories ahead of you, full of legendary heroes and horrors. Del Rey’s two-volume The Best of Robert E. Howard (Crimson Shadows and Grim Lands) contains a strong selection of his work.”
Yeah. I was just browsing through the contents. Strong choices. My preferences among the listed tales:
“Worms of the Earth”: For my money, REH’s best story
“Beyond the Black River”: My vote for peak Conan
People of the Black Circle: My choice for the ideal Conan story to turn into a film
“Kings of the Night”: Superb Bran Mak Morn tale
“The Mirrors of Tuzun Thune”: REH at his most metaphysical
“Wings in the Night”: Peak Solomon Kane
“Vultures of Wahpeton”: Perhaps Howard’s best Western
“The Tower of the Elephant”: Evocative tale of Conan as a young thief
@11: Perhaps LaValle is also mixing in a little of “The Cats of Ulthar”. Concerning The Case of Charles Dexter Ward, our hosts remarked on the first part that “This is as good as Lovecraft gets on race, which is pretty sad.” It does seem a little odd that out of the catalogue of weird Lovecraftian xenophobia LaValle chose one of the less egregious examples. (I should mention that we still have “The Street” to do, which is America vs. Evil Russian Immigrants with a generous helping of glurge. Fun times!)
Robert E. Howard struck me as being generally better than many pulp writers on race (this is admittedly not hard): few others would create heroes like N’Longa from the Solomon Kane series or, for that matter, the boxer Ace Jessel.
trajan23 @11 – I suppose that, re Charles Dexter Ward, LaValle is referring to the slaves Curwen used as fodder for his experiments. His sailors of various races used to disappear frequently, too. However, I’d interpret this not as racism but as picking for victims those whose disappearance would least attract attention. Which is part of society’s overarching racism, but not Curwen’s personally. I’d say that his contempt for humanity was pretty general, like-minded necromancers aside.
I think the cat in CDW is Nig? Another beloved and unkicked cat.
The dark travelers in Ulthar are the sympathetic characters, especially the boy who loses his black kitten to the cat-murdering villains. Who get theirs, and nobody else in Ulthar is going to kick or otherwise molest a cat.
I find the black couple occupying Curwen’s old house sympathetic. I don’t know, someone else might think them treated with condescension?
Other than this, at the moment, I got nothing.
Oh, and in Rats, of course the cat is named a number of times. It’s a practical matter, not a matter of “relish.” He’s a central character, almost always with the narrator, and there are a number of other cats in the house, so you can’t just call him “the cat.” As for abuse, it’s N-man who attacks the narrator (when narrator is psychologically alienated), not vice versa. One of the last laments of the narrator is that they’ve taken N-man from him.
Training in textual criticism should lead one to stick to the text, not fabricate from memory or for the sake of your own argument. At least, that was how I was taught, back in Gutenberg’s day and pet peeves stick with one like beloved felines.
I may have just reread the main Lovecraftian oeuvre, with an eye to being able to cite the racism of each story from memory, but I don’t think that should be a requirement for critique or deconstruction. And I won’t swear that, in the heat of an NPR interview, I’d get every detail perfect. (I’d like the chance to find out, though.)
I’ve frequently seen people attempt to critique–or support–deconstruction by citing the author’s perfect familiarity with canon, or lack thereof. However, the goal of deconstructive criticism isn’t to play Mad Libs with the answers to a trivia contest, but to engage deeply with one’s (quintessentially Lovecraftian) attraction-repulsion to the source material.
LaValle may have misremembered the treatment of the cat in “Rats in the Walls,” but he is certainly accurate about the treatment of African Americans in Lovecraft as a whole.
I don’t think anyone here was trying to suggest that a misremembered plot point in “Rats in the Walls” undermines LaValle’s really excellent deconstruction of “Horror at Red Hook.” But the fannish immune system does have a tendency to treat that kind of off-the-cuff memory for detail as a prerequisite to other types of engagement. But by acknowledging all those kinds of engagement, and meeting them on their own terms and merits, I think we get richer–if sometimes scarier–conversations.
@16:”LaValle may have misremembered the treatment of the cat in “Rats in the Walls,” but he is certainly accurate about the treatment of African Americans in Lovecraft as a whole.”
Sure. There’s no disputing the fact that HPL had extremely negative views towards Blacks. That being said, I still find it very strange that LaValle’s memory of “The Rats in the Walls” is that imperfect. Not to mention the fact that he somehow seems to have forgotten HPL’s status as one of the world’s greatest ailurophiles.
“I may have just reread the main Lovecraftian oeuvre, with an eye to being able to cite the racism of each story from memory, but I don’t think that should be a requirement for critique or deconstruction.”
Well, I would argue otherwise.My interest in a given critique/deconstruction is exactly proportional to the degree that the author shows his/her familiarity with the relevant texts. If I’m constantly spotting blatant factual errors, I lose all interest.
Neither I nor Wolfie Freud would deny that the “mistakes” one makes when remembering a text do lead to interesting and often productive discussions. As for LaValle’s own story, he has a right to play as he likes with the original and its Mythos. Don’t we all do that? Well, some of us, not looking in any mirrors or anything, but yeah, look, my reflection wavers in the very monitor screen!
I will defend the integrity of anyone’s text, her words, his thoughts. One writer’s “unspeakable loathsomeness” should not become “doubleplusungood” in the currently acceptable edition. An overall impression of nastiness — or excellence — or both — about anyone’s oeuvre is a valid point for discussion, but backing the impression with stuff not in the text weakens one’s argument. For the literary critic, the text is the OBJECT. It is what it is. Say whatever you like about what’s there. State your impression, your analysis, your emotional reaction, your admiration or indifference or outrage. But to actually misstate what’s there injures the author and the audience — and the critic. Certainly not inexcusable in the case of mistaken memory, but a toe trodden by accident still hurts. If the trodden one is mute (in HPL’s case via death, but there are many other kinds of muteness), should the accidental treader mind a bystander pointing out the treading?
@15 AMPillsworth:”Training in textual criticism should lead one to stick to the text, not fabricate from memory or for the sake of your own argument. At least, that was how I was taught, back in Gutenberg’s day and pet peeves stick with one like beloved felines.”
My sentiments exactly. I teach English lit for a living (my area is Lovecraft’s beloved 18th century), and I always insist that my students thoroughly ground their papers in the actual texts and not in their personal feelings. And theory* is never enough on its own. If you want to turn in a Lacanian-inflected paper, fine. Just remember that you have to use the actual text to support the analysis.
Personal anecdote: Back in grad school, I had a professor who had studied under Edward Said. He once told me that he presented a paper during one of Said’s seminars. It was full of big words and heavily dependent on the latest permutations of post-colonial theory. Indeed, it was so full of theory that the primary text was basically swamped, submerged beneath multiple layers of reference to competing critical gurus. The professor told me that Said was pretty much silent after the presentation was over, and that he let the class do most of the talking.
After the seminar was over, he went up to Said’s office. Said told him that the paper just made him extremely sad. No real engagement with the primary text, just lots and lots of theoretical posturing.The experience made my professor thoroughly revamp his approach. His next seminar paper was practically retro in terms of its reliance on close reading.
*Lots of my students are wannabe theory-heads.
If anyone’s interested, here’s a link to the interview with Victor LaValle:
http://www.npr.org/2016/02/29/468558238/the-ballad-of-black-tom-offers-a-tribute-and-critique-of-lovecraft
RE: THE BALLAD OF BLACK TOM,
I’ve read the preview sections, and I will say this. It is definitely much better than “The Horror at Red Hook.”
A direct link to the interview: http://www.npr.org/2016/02/29/468558238/the-ballad-of-black-tom-offers-a-tribute-and-critique-of-lovecraft
The tl;dr version of my first attempt to comment: virtually everything LaValle says here is sound, the error doesn’t materially affect LaValle’s points on Red Hook, it is nonetheless preferable that when an unambiguous error is made it is noted and corrected so that false information does not propagate.
Trajan23 @@@@@ 17: If the critique is dependent on those details, I would agree with you–Ballad of Black Tom doesn’t depend on how cats are treated in “Rats in the Walls.” If the critique is about a different story or raises a broader (but accurate and important point), that’s also a factor–both the case for Ballad.
I also try to bear in mind that reading direct fictional attacks on one’s own selfhood is painful, unpleasant, and sometimes harmful. Before you see this as oversensitivity, think about how reading a positive portrayal of someone like yourself can give you energy and courage for days. The opposite is also true. There’s a reason why an awesome discussion of Lilith was a good bribe to get me to read “Horror at Red Hook.” And it would take a lot to make me read it again.
AMPillsworth @@@@@ 18: I do think the error in this case is pretty telling (if not surprising) about LaValle’s overall impressions of Lovecraft. This is actually my area of research, back when I did psychological research–how people revise their memories of a story to better conform with their broader understanding of what the story was about. And everyone does it, one way or another. After 13 years of research, I can definitively report that anyone criticizing someone’s memory is misremembering something themselves, as surely as an online comment correcting your grammar is bound to contain a tuypo.
There is also–or should be–a difference between facts cited in support of a thesis, in a carefully thought out written critique, and those brought up in an interview about the critique. We should all be so lucky as to find out how much we can misremember in the august presence of Terry Gross.
Confession time: I started this reread after a random guy on a message board got into an argument about the deviations from original canon in “Litany of Earth.” He told the people there that he’d talked with me (he hadn’t) and could promise that I knew every detail of the canon backwards and forward (I didn’t). And I didn’t think I should have to, to write a story about how angry and excited I was about “Shadow Over Innsmouth,” and about how fear of monsters can lead to real harm, and about how humans aren’t the safest species in the world to share a planet with. At the same time, I was starting to look at a multi-book series for which deeper familiarity would be more useful. And frankly, I didn’t want to get into that many arguments about the relative value of transformative versus preservative fandom without being able to pwn both! But anyone who knows me will tell you that I have a pretty Talmud-ish attitude towards fannish argument. I don’t think it’s the only way to go about it.
I think most readers would be hard pressed to distinguish the deliberate deviations from the accidental ones, unless I told them (at least, no one’s managed it so far). They both reflect my reading of the story, and larger themes that exist in Lovecraft’s work, even if they don’t exist where I originally thought they did. I don’t think they undermine what I was trying to say, and plenty of people seem to agree. And I just figured out something really cool that I can do in Book 2 based on the biggest accidental error. As usual (something else I learned in my research), the imperfections of human memory are pretty intimately tied to human creativity.
The Yith, of course, would disagree with all of this, and insist that perfect documentation is the most important activity any sapient could devote themselves to. Or maybe not–after all, the Archives are full of memoirs written from fallable memory, without any access whatsoever to source materials.
@22:”If the critique is dependent on those details, I would agree with you–Ballad of Black Tom doesn’t depend on how cats are treated in “Rats in the Walls.” If the critique is about a different story or raises a broader (but accurate and important point), that’s also a factor–both the case for Ballad.”
Perhaps I should be clearer on this point. I’m not dismissing LaValle’s BALLAD OF BLACK TOM. As I noted upthread, the selections that I’ve read are quite interesting, and it certainly reads better than “Red Hook” (from an aesthetic standpoint, easily one of HPL’s worst stories).
I am, however, disturbed by his very inaccurate account of “The Rats in the Walls.” Criticism (as opposed to fiction) should always be as accurate as possible.
@22:”I also try to bear in mind that reading direct fictional attacks on one’s own selfhood is painful, unpleasant, and sometimes harmful. Before you see this as oversensitivity, think about how reading a positive portrayal of someone like yourself can give you energy and courage for days. The opposite is also true. There’s a reason why an awesome discussion of Lilith was a good bribe to get me to read “Horror at Red Hook.” And it would take a lot to make me read it again.”
I can understand taking offense at “direct fictional attacks on one’s own selfhood.” My maternal grandfather was a Latvian Jew who was lucky enough to get out ahead of the Nazis. His aunts and uncles weren’t so fortunate. So, yes, reading HPL’s numerous negative comments about Jews in his letters is not exactly a pleasurable experience for me. However, I try to always be as accurate as possible in my descriptions of HPL’s work.
Reading “The Black Stone” again (for the first time in years) prompted me to go back and re-read “Worms of the Earth.” And that’s given me an idea for a splendid anthology of “Little People” horror stories. My picks for the contents:
Gotta start with Machen: “The Novel of the Red Seal,” “The Red Hand,” “The Shining Pyramid.”
John Buchan: “No- Man’s Land”
Robert E Howard: “Worms of the Earth”
Lovecraft:”Pickman’s Model”
Karl Edward Wagner:”Where the Summer Ends”
T.E.D. Klein:”Children of the Kingdom”
One of the best bits in the story, to me, is quite peripheral to the actual tale: it’s the bit where he finds a huge rock in south America and realizes it appears to be the base of a column…which would have been skyscraper-high when intact. A really spooky “we are neither the first or the most important on this world” moment.
I must say, the part where he just goes over to Schomvaal and immediately not only digs in just the right spot, but also manages to rapidly dig up both the old count and a miraculously intact manuscript (which he of course can read because of course he can read 16th century court Turkish), really takes me out of the story. It’s practically Ax Cop levels of narrative handwavium.
If this were a Lovecraft tale, yes, the answer to “Is man really master of the Earth” would be no, but I’m not so sure about the Other Howard. He might have been highly pessimistic about civilization, but he had faith in his barbarians: no matter how horrid the abomination is, a barbarian with enough strength, courage and cunning is often a match for it, and if extra help is needed, there’s often a magical MacGuffin that will do the trick. Look at Valley of the Worm (which you should. :) )
Bruce Munro @@@@@ 25: Anyone else have headcanon about the Cimmerian who was in the Yithian Archives with Peaslee? I imagine Peaslee angsting with his tentacles slumped over one of those cyclopean balconies, and maybe-Conan waving a chalice full of nectar and telling him to buck up–remember, bards will sing of our exploits for millions of years!
R.Emrys @26 – I definitely need a picture of this. Artists! Take notice!
@26 & 27: Preferably done in a pastiche of Frank Frazetta’s style! Get to it!
@3 Actually, the first part of the village name, “Stregoi,” isn’t far off from “strigoi,” (approximately “STREE-goy” or “STRIH-goy” depending on how good your accent is–rhymes with “boy”), which is a Romanian mythical monster, sometimes not unlike a vampire, and sometimes what others would consider to be a witch. So when he says the town name is “approximately” Witch-town, it could be argued that he actually isn’t that far off, assuming it was the strigoi he had in mind when naming it.