Lovecraftian Horror

Oh, thanks! Blame the terrible search engine.

Anyway, I was reading "The Shadow Over Innsmouth", and I was surprised that the symbol of the Old Ones was a swastika of all things. What an odd choice.

First I'm hearing of this

The text mentions that the Pacific islanders use a symbol to ward off the Deep Ones, which is apparently a sigil of the Old Ones.

For what it's worth, I think that there's space in that "like" in which to interpret the symbols as being similar to, but not the same as.

I might imagine something like an octopus with fewer limbs—say five, or six—those limbs radiating out and curving as though it were swirling around, the ends thus trailing behind.

Conservation of detail means that when someone says "something like a swastika", it is, in fact, a swastika. Not to mention that the author has put the idea in readers' heads in any case of a swastika.

I would say that such an interpretation rather overextends "conservation of detail". Especially as the word "like" in fiction commonly introduces things that are similar to but not the same as the things to which they're likened, I daresay.

And only more so in cosmic horror, where a character may be describing someone quite outside of usual experience, and so relating it to something more familiar.

So, I don't agree that text saying "something like an X" indicates that it's "an X".

I do agree that the image of the symbol has been conjured by the comparison—but that may be to a variety of ends. It could, for example, be intended to disquiet the reader by reminding them of something rather unpleasant.

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Dec 15th 2022 at 8:59:35 PM

One hastens to mention that the swastika and it's inverse, the sauwastika, was a symbol of importance to many cultures for centuries before the Nazis got hold of it. As far as a symbol being "like" a swastika, some interpretations of the swastika aren't immediately identifiable as such to modern eyes (the "bent cross" configuration being the one we're most familiar with), and resemble something like a stylized spiral.

Edited by Robbery on Dec 15th 2022 at 1:19:17 AM

I know, but wasn't the swastika already associated with Nazis back then?

Even more awkward is the mention of concentration camps used by US forces to dispose of Innsmouth detainees.

I recommend Ruthanna Emrys for discussion of the Innsmouth issue from a different perspective.

https://booknest.eu/component/k2/blog/1469-interviewwithruthannaemrys

3. How did you come up with the concept of the Innsmouth Legacy series?

I came to Lovecraft sideways: my college friends played call of Cthulhu, had plush elder gods, read the Illuminatus Trilogy. So I knew all the jokes and references, and eventually decided I should read the original stories. My wife started reading a “Best of” collection aloud while I made dinner every night. We’d comment on the stories as we went through them, snarking about the language and speculating about the cosmic histories. I’d known going in that Lovecraft was a bigot, but I hadn’t realized the full scope of it. For a lot of stories it was just another thing we made fun of—the “degenerate Dutch,” really?—but “Shadow Over Innsmouth” left me open-mouthed. I thought I knew the whole story by osmosis, but no. It starts with the government raiding Innsmouth and sending everyone to concentration camps. And it starts with the premise that this is a good thing.

For some obscure reason, if you put characters in concentration camps, I’m likely to assume they’re the good guys.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Dec 15th 2022 at 3:36:46 AM

"Degenerate Dutch"? That's one I haven't heard before...

Eldritch plushies, that really says it all about how views have changed on this kind of story. I generally find it a bit hard to get into the horror aspect of these stories at times because they rely so much on the idea that anything that looks inhuman but acts intelligently is automatically horrifying.

It's kind of hard to be that shocked by those creatures in this day and age of fantasy, sci-fi, and furries, to say nothing of the whole Cthulhu fandom in general.

Speaking of Cthulhu, I read Call of Cthulhu, and while it was enjoyable, I still had some Hype Backlash / Seinfeld Is Unfunny reaction to it. Especially when Cthulhu is beaten by a steamboat. It's a bit hard to take Ctulhu seriously when he canonically has the consistency of sea foam.

X3 The Nazis adopted the swastika as the symbol of their party in 1920. Lovecraft wrote "Shadow Over Innsmouth" in 1931. He may have known about the Nazis use of the symbol, but at the time it isn't likely he'd have thought much of it; they didn't take control of Germany until 1933.

"Concentration camps" is likely a similar thing, actually. The term and the idea, while not pleasent, didn't have the monstrous connotations in '31 that they do now. In times of war, it was a common practice in many nations all over the world to put enemy nationals in internment or concentration camps; it was something sometimes done when a town had an outbreak of an infectious disease, too.

"Degenerate Dutch..." We do tend to forget that the Dutch and Scandinavian immigrants were also the victims of prejudice in the US as well, for awhile. You don't here the term "gargantuan Swede" or "know-nothing Swede" tossed around much anymore, either. Everyone was hated by someone at some time or another...

Understand, Lovecraft was definitely a snob and a bigot, but you have to remember that some of these details and ideas would have been read very differently in 1931 than they are now. Ruthanna Emrys comes off there sounding like she's not much of a student of history.

Edited by Robbery on Dec 15th 2022 at 8:09:51 AM

It should be noted that Lovecraft was for a time a fascist sympathizer to put this unpleasant element directly under a lampshade. Ironically, his fascist sympathies were abandoned due to the heroic efforts of Robert E. Howard. Yes, that Robert E. Howard.

Robert E. Howard, who was arguably Lovecraft's RL best friend even if they never met in person, explained in EXHAUSTING detail that fascists were not only scummy people but that they hated people like HPL. They were not fond of intellectuals, scientists, OR pulp writers.

http://www.castaliahouse.com/robert-e-howard-and-the-third-reich/

Which is why Robert E. Howard was a boss.

Late Lovecraft was a New Deal Democrat and anti-fascist in part because REH's influence: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26868464

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Dec 15th 2022 at 10:16:52 AM

Yeah, sometimes people really do change.

That doesn’t sound like it made him a less racist person, just that he had it explained to him that yes, the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party wanted to eat his face.

It does seem like he genuinely became less racist. It really does happen. Herge is another example.

I'm trying to find it, but I did come across something recently that sounded like an apology by Lovecraft for his previous views. Because I've heard for years that Lovecraft did change towards the end of his life, but I never previously came across any real proof of that.

What I think I came across a letter to C.L. Moore. I think it might be the letter transcribed here, in which Lovecraft expresses anti-Nazi and pro-New Deal views.

After discussing politics generally, here's the relevant part:

On the other hand though, I have no idea exactly what was the content of the earlier letter, and I note that Lovecraft never explicitly talks about the exact earlier views he's repudiating.

Also, although 1937 is later than 1933, I will note this Reddit history post that's skeptical of the "Reformed Lovecraft". The Lovecraft of 1933 was broad-minded enough to understand and respect the work of Franz Boas, but still called him a "N- Lover". And similarly, he was enlightened enough to know that it was rude to make antisemitic comments in correspondence, especially if he was writing to someone he didn't know was Jewish, but not enlightened enough to stop being antisemitic.

So basically, my take is that I no longer think that "reformed Lovecraft" is a complete myth, but I'm still pretty skeptical. Maybe if he had more time he would have changed more, but I can't imagine he'd have reacted well to the Civil Rights Movement.

Lastly, I suppose that the bar was so low for Lovecraft that the amount of change he made is impressive in that context.

Edited by Hodor2 on Dec 16th 2022 at 9:00:06 AM

I think some fans of lovecraft need a dope slap

Also, going back to the beginning of this discussion, I see Shadows Over Innsmouth was written in 1936, which is during the timeframe of "reformed Lovecraft", but also at a time when Lovecraft (and everyone else in the world), knew of the Nazi association of swastikas and concentration camps.

So I'm not really sure what to think about that. Like I realize that the story is not an Author Tract, and there's obviously some intentional moral ambiguity, but I'd take it as compelling evidence that Lovecraft probably didn't change for the better all that much.

The full extent of the horrors of those concentration camps only became widely known during the war, so it's entirely possible Lovecraft didn't know about that.

That's true. I should have been more specific. What I mean, is that the story was written late enough that Swastika and Concentration Camp would have clear Nazi associations. Like if it was written in the early 1920's, Swastika would just be a random good luck symbol and a concentration camp would presumably be associated with the Boer War.

I am wondering though if the Swastika mention is supposed to be a Take That! towards Nazism though, since it's identified as a symbol of the Old Ones.

Also, in Lovecraft's defense, the story basically says that what the Innsmouthians were doing was so bad that concentration camps were a reasonable response. Which is kind of iffy in itself, but at the same time, the story obviously assumes that the audience will understand it to be (generally) very bad to put people in concentration camps.

Edited by Hodor2 on Dec 16th 2022 at 9:54:44 AM

Again, "Shadow Over Innsmouth" was written in '31 (before the Nazi's took control of Germany), published in '36. The Jewish concentration camps in Germany weren't a thing until the 40's. The concentration camps that Lovecraft would have been familiar with would have been the ones for Germans and other citizens of the Central Powers from WWI (in the US, England, Canada, France, and other Allied nations) and the Soviet Gulags, that began in 1918.

American Southern writers of the 20's and '30's gassed on a lot about the decline in "vitality" of the old Southern aristocracy, and of what they considered the American elite in general, seeing it being replaced by "new money" (they would have seen the Vanderbilts—some of those "degenerate Dutch"—, whose money was made in railroads, as "new money"); they were deathly afraid of minorities and immigrants, as well. Lovecraft was not Southern, and was a pulp writer, but you see that element in his work as well. Interestingly, you see it in Raymond Chandler's detective fiction as well; Chandler, an American raised in England and educated at Dulwich College, was a horrible snob who also hated "new money" (though, while he often used some horribly racist language, he was more sympathetic to minorities than you might expect).

But yes, Lovecraft held racist views, and was writing in an era that was at worst racist itself, and at best extremely racially insensitive. We shouldn't be surprised when racist stuff crops up in his work.

Edited by Robbery on Dec 16th 2022 at 10:11:33 AM

I mean, I take the view Lovecraft was a racist asshole who had unfortunate beliefs. I furthermore as a Lovecraft scholar go, "and it seems to have ruined his marriage to a fantastic woman and led to him living a less fulfilling life."

I don't need HPL to be a good person, though, because as far as I can tell he never hurt anyone with these views. Just himself.

I read them and go, "I disagree with everything you say but you make cool monsters." The same as I'm able to enjoy Raymond Chandler and Dashielle Hammet despite their homophobia (oddly both seem much worse about it than Mickey Spillane who gets way much more shit).

Ruthanna Emrys notably said that when discussing The Shadows over Innsmouth you should be thinking less Nazis and more America's Japanese. Which is not about defending it but saying just what you should be appalled by.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Dec 16th 2022 at 10:37:39 AM

Interestingly, while the American internment of Japanese Americans in WWII has only comparatively recently gotten much attention, what's even less well known is that the US interred German-Americans and Italian-Americans as well. Not in the same numbers as Japanese-Americans, but it happened. I bring this up not to diminish the internment of Japanese-Americans, which was horrible, but because hardly anyone seems to know about it.

Lovecraft was a deeply troubled man, largely humorless, plagued by personal phobias and weird nightmares, whose most significant relationships were had through correspondence. As you say, though, his personality flaws mostly hurt only himself and no one else.

Hell, Edgar Allen Poe was also a racist and a snob, but he doesn't get nearly as much pushback for it, probably because it doesn't come up as much in his work (though it does in "The Gold Bug").

Still, a talented and enormously creative writer who helped to found the modern horror genre, and who has influenced generations of writers.

Chandler's view of homosexuals is interesting, or at least the attitude he ascribes to Marlowe, his detective protagonist, is. He manages to be disgusted by and contemptuous of them while at the same time being sympathetic towards their outsider status.

Edited by Robbery on Dec 16th 2022 at 10:48:59 AM

Well, of course, and he was still pretty racist even after recanting the worst of it. We will never know what he would have thought of the civil rights movement, let alone of modern sensibilities, but the fact that he did lighten his views suggests that it is at least possible he could have come around to it.

I think it's also important to realize that he grew up in a time when racism was both endemic and normalized, and it would have been that much more difficult to escape that mindset back then.

Pre-20th century literature is full of racists, and you'll always have to contend with that to some degree or another. I think in such cases it is better to judge them by the standards of their own time, rather than ours.

Edited by Redmess on Dec 16th 2022 at 7:44:13 PM

Like I said, as a big fan of detective fiction of the 1930s and 1940s, basically Pulp in general, it's something I admit you have to either roll with or restrict yourself from reading.

It is kind of bizarre that Robert E. Howard of the "Conan is a big aryan demigod" seems to have actually really pushed back on a lot of his friends' racism. Which shows a bit of Values Dissonance as Conan's creator really loved other cultures and history versus his Americanophile WASP friends.

And Lovecraft being a big patriot who hated the Nazis and fascists once they became enemies makes perfect sense as reflecting a typical American attitude of the period.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Dec 16th 2022 at 10:52:47 AM