|
Josef K. Sourdust posted:A very critical review of the Annotated Lovecraft in the New York Review of Books: This just reads like a low effort troll that rehashes every other criticism of Lovecraft (He uses italics and lots of adjectives) You can tell the author plainly thinks that weird or speculative literature "isn't serious" quote:The new volume of his stories, approximately the size and heft of the Manhattan telephone directory, is a curious production, like something imagined by Borges. Stories that first appeared in pulp magazines such as Amazing Stories and Weird Tales are carefully annotated here, with footnoted and illustrated explanations appearing in the margins. Because the bookish Lovecraft had an antiquarian side, along with a taste for the esoteric and the arcane, the explanations—of prolate spheroids, sigillaria, calamites, the Archaeozoic era, Otaheite, the Pilbara region, the Clavis Majoris Sapientiae, and many, many other locales and phenomena—are helpful. But the effect is like having a friendly and obliging professor whispering learned asides all through a blood-spattered grind-house movie.
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 16:33 |
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:I disagree. The Weird Tales crew were, by and large, poor writers and massive racists, but their influence on the genre grants them enormous historical importance. It's the same reason why you can't ignore Birth of a Nation despite it being literal Klan propaganda. How exactly was Robert E Howard a bad writer?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2015 01:56
|
|