From: dmpowell@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Darin M. Powell)
Subject: Re: Lovecraft dogma
Keywords: lovecraft
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 18:15:55 EDT

In article <1992Aug10.151338.20743@syacus.acus.oz.au> william@syacus.acus.oz.au (William Mason) writes:

>Of course, Nietzche, and following, Shaw and Satre persue a similar 
>ethos.  I would not think that the interpretation given is a complete,
>or even representative, rendition of HPL's ethic.

	I have been interested for some time now on the extent
	to which HPL's philosophies partially mirrored existentialism.
	I am not sure if much existentail thought was available to
	him (I believe Kirkegaard would have been floating around)
	or if he ever read any of it. It's highly improbable that
	he was an influence on any of them, but I am interested
	to know whether his thoughts sprung from exposure to
	existential thought, or arose independently.

>jacob@plasma2.ssl.berkeley.edu (Jamey Jacob) writes:
>>	"...common human laws and interests and emotions
>>	 have no validity or signifigance in the vast
>>	 cosmos-at-large..."
>>				--HP Lovecraft
>
>>This is the crux of the feelings I think Lovecraft was trying
>>to convey to his dark audience.  The complete and utter uselessness
>>of all the things we humans strive for and beleive.  That's
>
>Which is an approach based on Existentialism -- no ?  I prefer to give
>HPL more credit. 

	I think that's a pretty fair summation, myself. HPL's
	philosphy was complex, and changed over time from an
	Anglophilic, right-wing, racist, antiquitist, monarchist
	outlook to a more socialism-influenced base. His mature
	works reflect this final stage. But his belief in
	"cosmicism", coming from his early fascination with
	astronomy, was pretty consistent. It only became more
	complex and solid, finding ultimate fruition in Cthulhu
	and friends.

>are a couple which really give a handle to reality.  There was one
>called "Bad Influence", if you haven't seen it, look.  (I think Rob Lowe
>was in it).  The main "bad guy" was a complete socio-path -- and, imho,
>then again, NOT.  Merely a (Nietzche) "superman".  (The distinction, 
>could take alot of words -- and it's subjective anyway).
>
>A friend asked, "Why did he do those things ?"  My reply was simply,
>"Because he could."  She merely thought I was being weird :-).

	A good film. The Nietzche angle was quite evident.  

>Yes, and there is the context.  So I can easily concede Satre.  One
>point is that in the 20's Nietzche's stuff was 'getting about'.  Don't
>take my word for it, look at HPL, himself ...
>
>    "The appeal of the spectrally macabre is generally narrow
>    because it _demands_from_the_reader_a_certain_degree_of_
>    imagination_ and a capacity for _detatchment_from_everyday 
>    _life.  Relatively few are free enough from the spell of 
>    daily routine to respond ..."  [my emphasis again, wm]
>       -- HPL, "Supernatural Horror in Literature"

	But did he read Nietzche? does he ever mention Nietzche
	in his letters? I'd be interested in finding this out.

>-- 
>_____ "Though the course may change, Rivers ~always~ reach the sea." lz _____

	"In the midst I think of you, and how it used to be."


	Darin Powell
	Sryacuse University