3 ms·
I recently read a bunch of old Lovecraft stories (to catch up, as it were.. I never read them when I was younger), and it was quite humorous to constantly read
by radarsat1 15y ago
I recently read a bunch of old Lovecraft stories (to catch up, as it were.. I never read them when I was younger), and it was quite humorous to constantly read about how objects in the environment were "horrifying" or "terrible." Often he'd literally be talking about a hallway or a pattern on the wall, and just describe it as if it were the most hideous, horrible thing in the universe. I eventually started getting the impression that the main character was just kind of depressed or something, which made me laugh and groan rather than be scared.
Still very much fun to read these old classics, and the intention of the writer comes through despite these 1920's pulp idioms, so it was intensely enjoyable, but I would say that this style of writing definitely shows its age.
(I also recently read John Carter and the Princess of Mars, which was written around the same era, and it's equally silly but for different reasons.)
- nandemo 15y agoI'll quote Brazilian writer Alexandre Soares Silva (the translation is mine so please don't blame him if the quote doesn't match the original Lovecraft's): > Critics always laugh at H. P. Lovecraft, the American horror writer -- they laught at his style. They laugh at stuff such as "the stars shone sinisterly". They ask how can a sinisterly-shining-star shine any differently from other stars. In short, they claim that the adverb is spurious. But it isn't so: that adverb makes feel that the stars are shining sinisterly. I can imagine a star shining sinisterly -- can't you? > The prejudice against adjectives and adverbs will be regarded as a 20th century fad.