ancientjaguar (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
lady_kishiria) wrote2011-02-28 04:23 pm
lady_kishiria) wrote2011-02-28 04:23 pm
Entry tags:
Lovecraftian thoughts
I went to a panel on Cthulhu becoming a pop culture icon yesterday. There was much talk of the mythos having an underlying theme of repressed sexuality, that Howard created a mythos for atheists, and the otherness of beings that can live at the bottom of the sea and/or in outer space.
I brought up the idea that Cthulhu & Co. might represent nature out of control. I've since thought more about it and the more I ponder, the more I think this might be significant. This doesn't rule out the "repressed sexuality" idea--sexuality is of course where Nature hits us hardest and most regularly. This also may be why kids start reading Lovecraft at the point where their bodies are changing, in the grip of forces that cannot be stopped. (Note that the "changing body" theme is one that pops up more than a little in Lovecraft's stories.)
The ocean is about the most cthonic feature of the planet. It's the origin of all life, goes down to unknown depths, and if we go down to those depths the ocean will crush us.
Another thing that brings up the "Lovecraft was writing about nature" concept for me is how the beings of the mythos don't care. We're just food. An acquaintance of mine who sits in her home reading fantasy too much and not getting out enough tried to impress upon me that the beings are frightening because of that. Well, I can have that by just swimming off of the California coast and being at risk from shark attack. Humans are not the top of the food chain, sharks are, and that, I think, is a very, very scary idea for most Americans. I think it was for Lovecraft.
Americans are not used to the idea of forces over which they cannot overcome, or which they cannot harness. This notion of not being in control, not being the top of the food chain, not being in a situation in which they will triumph is almost unthinkable and nature fits this bill. I was further reflecting today that Lovecraft's horror would have been much different if he'd participated in World War One. Offhand I can't think of any horror writers who did, anyone? Allison? I saw an interesting piece once on how WW1 influenced horror film, bringing to it images of disfigured humans and fiery hells.
I find human-made horror, or the horror that is the result of terrible human action, much more frightening that the Cthulhu mythos. Cthulhu and his ilk are as evil as sharks, that is to say, not at all. It's nothing personal. The violence that is personal terrifies me where the impersonal destruction of nature does not.
I am reflecting on this at a time when nature is again having its way with me: I am going through menopause. I think that might be why I've read "Shadow Over Innsmouth" twice and am going back for a third read soon. Old women are objects of horror, and like the hero of "Innsmouth" I am seeing myself in them now--and relishing it.
BOO!
I brought up the idea that Cthulhu & Co. might represent nature out of control. I've since thought more about it and the more I ponder, the more I think this might be significant. This doesn't rule out the "repressed sexuality" idea--sexuality is of course where Nature hits us hardest and most regularly. This also may be why kids start reading Lovecraft at the point where their bodies are changing, in the grip of forces that cannot be stopped. (Note that the "changing body" theme is one that pops up more than a little in Lovecraft's stories.)
The ocean is about the most cthonic feature of the planet. It's the origin of all life, goes down to unknown depths, and if we go down to those depths the ocean will crush us.
Another thing that brings up the "Lovecraft was writing about nature" concept for me is how the beings of the mythos don't care. We're just food. An acquaintance of mine who sits in her home reading fantasy too much and not getting out enough tried to impress upon me that the beings are frightening because of that. Well, I can have that by just swimming off of the California coast and being at risk from shark attack. Humans are not the top of the food chain, sharks are, and that, I think, is a very, very scary idea for most Americans. I think it was for Lovecraft.
Americans are not used to the idea of forces over which they cannot overcome, or which they cannot harness. This notion of not being in control, not being the top of the food chain, not being in a situation in which they will triumph is almost unthinkable and nature fits this bill. I was further reflecting today that Lovecraft's horror would have been much different if he'd participated in World War One. Offhand I can't think of any horror writers who did, anyone? Allison? I saw an interesting piece once on how WW1 influenced horror film, bringing to it images of disfigured humans and fiery hells.
I find human-made horror, or the horror that is the result of terrible human action, much more frightening that the Cthulhu mythos. Cthulhu and his ilk are as evil as sharks, that is to say, not at all. It's nothing personal. The violence that is personal terrifies me where the impersonal destruction of nature does not.
I am reflecting on this at a time when nature is again having its way with me: I am going through menopause. I think that might be why I've read "Shadow Over Innsmouth" twice and am going back for a third read soon. Old women are objects of horror, and like the hero of "Innsmouth" I am seeing myself in them now--and relishing it.
BOO!