site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2yr ago (text post)   3569 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for April 14, 2023

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

With all the shoggoth talk nowadays, I finally got around to reading (listening to) At the Mountains of Madness. There were definitely some good parts, but it kind of dragged in the middle. You probably couldn't cut it down as short as The Call of Cthulhu (the only other Lovecraft I've read), but this should have been a two-and-a-half hour audiobook instead of a four-and-a-half hour audiobook. One thing I haven't seen remarked upon is that the shoggoths were created by the Elder Things to facilitate construction and economic growth before they became too powerful to control, making the metaphor quite apt.

HPL's poetry is much less remembered than his prose, but I like much of it. Astrophobos in particular strikes a chord in me I can't quite describe.

I'm going to repeat my take that when you think of the great authors who more or less founded genres, the giants of the field, Lovecraft is remarkable for being the worst writer in the category. But he does belong in the category, he really did found a distinct genre that has been massively influential. But compare him to Poe, Tolkien, Wells, Homer, Austen, Foster Wallace, Joyce and other category defining writers and he comes up not just short but pathetically so. The closest I can get to a writer who was so bad at his craft but so influential would be De Sade, and the Divine Marquis at least wrote in a less accessible, more difficult genre and era.

What are better writers in the same category though? I've heard a few names, like August Derleth, but apparently nobody reads them at all (including me).

And Lovecraft isn't that bad of a writer anyways, IMO. I've read everything he has written, twice, and enjoyed it. The only really bad story was https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Medusa%27s_Coil which is so hilariously racist it's good actually!

O, that reminded me, if you want to read something really REALLY bad, check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lair_of_the_White_Worm by Bram Stoker after he suffered a couple of strokes apparently. Words can't do it justice.

...

It's actually a fairly common nickname for him among a certain subset of writers/thinkers who considered his philosophy fascinating.

I do think he falls under a similar category as Machiavelli, where the surface level of his writings reflect a morality that is disgusting, while the philosophy that underlies it is somewhat more interesting.

...

What about De Sade may anybody find fascinating? He's not a good writer and his books are calcavades of whatever indecent actions he can think of. You'd have a similar product if you'd asked a rambunctious teenager to write "the naughtiest story ever."

If you like Lovecraft's general vibe, I strongly recommend The Rats in the Walls, which is both short enough to be read in one sitting and more purely frightening than anything else I've read by him (and I've read a lot).

It's a shame that's the one with the unnameable cat, because it's harder to promote it more broadly.

At the Mountains of Madness is probably to the Cthulhu fanbase as the Extended Directors Cuts are to the Lord of the Rings movie fanbase. Yeah, some other Lovecraft stories were better edited, suggestive-by-subtraction, and well-paced jewels of horror (Innsmouth or Call). But at a certain point you're a super-fan and want a buffet.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats