Posted by tallman at 11:52pm May 23 '06My answers (much is simply copied from my post in the other thread:P)
1. Did you like the book? Why or why not?
I did, though I don't think it was too brilliant. A few people thought there should have been more characterization for the narrarator and the other human characters, but the book seemed to me to be more about the fall of a great civilization than about the explorers themselves (who are just an excuse to tell the story). Furthermore, the civilization appears to have been done in by slaves of their own creation (the Shoggoths). When you put this novel in it's historical context - post-war, and post stock market crash - it's easy to see why Lovecraft would focus on such a thing.
2. Have you ever read Lovecraft before? If so, did that enhance or detract from this book?
I have. I think it both enhanced and detracted. It enhanced because I was familiar with his style and was willing to put up with some of his more baroque tendencies (i.e. all of his mentions of nameless this, unspeakable that and cyclopean horrors echoing through the aeons). Because I've read other stories I got used to his florid style, and I find it sort of comforting in that it instantly brings me to a certain mood that I don't get reading anything else. It detracted because there wasn't much in the way of new stuff here. It was a very typical story in that way.
3. Does placing the book in its historical context (post-war, and post stock market crash) affect your opinion of the book? Should it?
As I mentioned above, I think it makes a lot more sense if you look at it from this perspective. I don't know if I really think this would be thought of as a symbolic fictional retelling of the "Decline of the West" as China Mieville seems to think (if anyone has the "definitive edition" of the book, he makes a case for this in much better terms than I, though I don't know if I buy it - I didn't know much about Lovecraft's politics, which I must say are a bit of a turnoff)
4. One of Lovecraft's standard techniques is to approach the supernatural from a scientific standpoint, the point being that making it seem more realistic makes it more scary. Does that work here?
The scientific tone of the humans in the novel is really effective, I think. One of the things that occurred to me is that this novel really is a product of the times, as in this day of satellites and google earth, we know that there are no Mountains of Madness in Antarctica. Would we be a little more scared if we were reading this when he wrote it? When there would still be some sort of lingering doubt that this story could actually happen? Lovecraft is really good at this sort of thing, though I think it was used more effectively in some of his other work (or perhaps it just works better when employed for shorter stories)
5. Speaking of science, in this age of satellites and Google Earth, does knowing that the mountains Lovecraft describes don't exist detract from the story? I imagine the concept of discovering an ancient city in the wasteland of the antartic would be somewhat plausible at the time this book was published, but not so much now. Does that detract from the book?
Woops, looks like I talked about this above:P
~[private]
1. Did you like the book? Why or why not?
I did, though I don't think it was too brilliant. A few people thought there should have been more characterization for the narrarator and the other human characters, but the book seemed to me to be more about the fall of a great civilization than about the explorers themselves (who are just an excuse to tell the story). Furthermore, the civilization appears to have been done in by slaves of their own creation (the Shoggoths). When you put this novel in it's historical context - post-war, and post stock market crash - it's easy to see why Lovecraft would focus on such a thing.
2. Have you ever read Lovecraft before? If so, did that enhance or detract from this book?
I have. I think it both enhanced and detracted. It enhanced because I was familiar with his style and was willing to put up with some of his more baroque tendencies (i.e. all of his mentions of nameless this, unspeakable that and cyclopean horrors echoing through the aeons). Because I've read other stories I got used to his florid style, and I find it sort of comforting in that it instantly brings me to a certain mood that I don't get reading anything else. It detracted because there wasn't much in the way of new stuff here. It was a very typical story in that way.
3. Does placing the book in its historical context (post-war, and post stock market crash) affect your opinion of the book? Should it?
As I mentioned above, I think it makes a lot more sense if you look at it from this perspective. I don't know if I really think this would be thought of as a symbolic fictional retelling of the "Decline of the West" as China Mieville seems to think (if anyone has the "definitive edition" of the book, he makes a case for this in much better terms than I, though I don't know if I buy it - I didn't know much about Lovecraft's politics, which I must say are a bit of a turnoff)
4. One of Lovecraft's standard techniques is to approach the supernatural from a scientific standpoint, the point being that making it seem more realistic makes it more scary. Does that work here?
The scientific tone of the humans in the novel is really effective, I think. One of the things that occurred to me is that this novel really is a product of the times, as in this day of satellites and google earth, we know that there are no Mountains of Madness in Antarctica. Would we be a little more scared if we were reading this when he wrote it? When there would still be some sort of lingering doubt that this story could actually happen? Lovecraft is really good at this sort of thing, though I think it was used more effectively in some of his other work (or perhaps it just works better when employed for shorter stories)
5. Speaking of science, in this age of satellites and Google Earth, does knowing that the mountains Lovecraft describes don't exist detract from the story? I imagine the concept of discovering an ancient city in the wasteland of the antartic would be somewhat plausible at the time this book was published, but not so much now. Does that detract from the book?
Woops, looks like I talked about this above:P
~[private]
My Answers - tallman