Comic Book Review

Send to a Friend



To: (email)


To: (name)


From: (name)


Message:



"Graphic Classics: H.P. Lovecraft"

By: Kurt Amacker
Review Date: Wednesday, February 14, 2007

I must have set some kind of record for reviewing two prose-to-comic adaptations in one week.  Regardless, Graphic Classics’ H.P. Lovecraft collection visualizes several stories by the pulp author, including Herbert West – Reanimator, The Shadow Over Innsmouth, Dreams in the Witch-House, and a few others.  A huge slate of artists and writers contributed to this anthology, including Richard Corben, Simon Gane, Pedro Lopez, Matt Howarth, and a bunch of others.  Most of the artists bring a curiously cartoonish quality to the stories, but it never detracts from the eldritch proceedings therein. 

I should briefly opine on H.P. Lovecraft, in light of my words about Stephen King in my Dark Tower review.  Lovecraft’s prose has rarely impressed me or anyone else, including all but his most ardent fans.  Lovecraft loved adjectives to the point of ridiculous excess.  Rather than attempting to describe the many indescribable horrors encountered by his scholar-turned-adventurer protagonists, old Howard Phillips would often launch into diatribes of abstract adjectives worthy of the most long-winded politicians.  But, he certainly enjoyed moments of literary grace – At the Mountains of Madness remains fairly readable – and he rarely descended to true dreck.  I have a few Lovecraft anthologies on my shelf and I consider myself a fan.  However, like J.R.R. Tolkien, the breadth and scope of his mythology far outclasses his idiosyncratic prose.  He just needed a better editor. 

That said, Graphic Classics’ Lovecraft anthology succeeds by removing Lovecraft’s enjoyably gruesome stories from the author’s quirky prose.  And, in this case, we actually see the looming, indescribable, eldritch horrors sprung forth from the unknowable abyss that lurks beyond time and space!  We see them!  In fact, the visualization of so many Lovecraftian creatures serves as this anthology’s greatest strength.  Whereas the author assured us these creatures were simply too horrible to describe, several accomplished cartoonists and comic artists do just that.  Obviously, I’m exaggerating just a bit, but I really enjoyed seeing faithful, competent renditions of Lovecraft’s work, particularly given the dearth of quality film adaptations.   


If you love Lovecraft or just want an accessible introduction, pick up Graphic Classics: H.P. Lovecraft.  

Questions? Comments? Let us know what you think at comicscape@mania.com.


More Content By Kurt Amacker
NO FLY ZONE: Comics You May Have Missed: Fun Home
(Friday, November 21, 2008)
NO FLY ZONE: Neverending Stories
(Friday, November 14, 2008)
Establishing a No-Fly Zone
(Friday, November 7, 2008)
Comicscape: Kurt’s Final Comicscape
(Wednesday, October 29, 2008)
Comicscape: Comic Books and the 2008 Election
(Wednesday, October 22, 2008)
Comicscape: A Bit of This and That
(Wednesday, October 15, 2008)
Comicscape: Something is Always in the Way
(Wednesday, October 8, 2008)
DAREDEVIL #110
(Wednesday, October 8, 2008)
Comicscape: The Kirkman vs. Bendis Steel Cage Match
(Wednesday, October 1, 2008)
Comicscape: Saving Superman's House
(Wednesday, September 24, 2008)
Fandango Logo
Comments/Responses
1
michaelxaviermaelstrom • Feb 14, 2007, 03:36am •
I loveCraft H.P's prose ye heathen dark twisted frightful unnatural nightmarish unnameable thing.

But, to each their own opine.

Just please tell me those "graphic representations" of the indescribable aren't ALL octopodes (again - Ed) and I'll be all over this collection.

Post Script: Fellow Lovecraft'ians or Re-Animator'ites if you have the opportunity to engage in some temporal homicide, check out this small flash game I found nomened DE-ANIMATOR:

located 'ere: http://artscool.cfa.cmu.edu/~lee/deanimator.html

BONUS: click on "story" then "read more" (in game) to take a break from blowing away zombies and read some Lovecraft short stories.

mXm

Zigra • Feb 14, 2007, 05:37am •
Part of the problem with Mr. Amacker's comments is that he doesn't seem to understand the *reason* why Lovecraft did not go into any detailed descriptions for many of his entities. That reason is that many of them were suppose to be beyond human comprehension, not just in their nature, but in their very form an appearance. One would note the non-Euclidean geometry of R'lyeh. Such things would be impossible for a human to imagine, let alone describe in words. And that was the whole point Lovecraft was trying to get across with his "abstract adjectives".

evilron • Feb 14, 2007, 07:13am •
Kurt is right in one regard, though. Lovecraft's style takes some getting used to. When I've discussed his stories over the years, the biggest complaint I've heard is Lovecraft's stories are just too difficlut to get into. To some readers the story isn't worth the effort. I've disagree with them, but understand what they're saying.

michaelxaviermaelstrom • Feb 14, 2007, 04:24pm •

I understand their position likewise I just don't agree with it.

I find the same argument.,

ie. an reading-entry-prohibitive prose threshold.

..would or could as equally be applied to argue that the following "aren't worth it":

William Gibson
William Shakespeare
Edgar Allan Poe
Woody Allen
and even David Mamet.

(and quite possibly the entire staff of The Guardian, The New Yorker, or any paper or magazine the engages in intermediate or advanced use of the English language -Ed)

I'm not bothered by those that state reading X "is too much work for me" as that has the benefit of being honest.

Where I take issue is when the judgement (ostensibly of a work they haven't or aren't going to read) "it's not worth it" is applied instead.

imo Lovecraft ..like Shakespeare, Gibson, Poe, Allen and Mamet, is indeed worth it.

I think Kurt is correct in the sense that whatever you think of Lovecraft's prose, his genius is that his stories are highly impacting; the characters and images stand out in the mind's retina long after the prose have been mastered and digested.

That is in fact, what makes reading Lovecraft "worth it".

But I would also argue that Lovecraft's prose are not simple artifice or needless construct, they

1. create and augment the unsettling atmosphere in his work.

2. as Zigra mentioned some repeated terminology is deliberate (the "indescribable" because to describe it would drive you mad., is a "concept" that is invoked when he uses the word)

the "unnamable" invokes a concept likewise that has the advanced literary effect of drawing a parallel between the fictional writer's world and the reader's world, because it implies to name it (in the book) would draw it forth into (the reader's) world.

(concepts that occult'ists know well)

3. the structure of Lovecraft's prose also forces the writer's designated _pace_ onto the reader.

You cannot speed-read Lovecraft, you are forced to allow the author to envelop you in his atmosphere and story at his pace.

(I think Lovecraft would have loved being a film director)

But ultimately as Kurt says once you stop fighting Lovecraft's prose (which are really not as difficult as they may seem initially) and you settle down to read, I find, you find that just like Shakespeare, Gibson, Poe, Allen and Mamet, it's WELL worth the trip.


1
Login to post a comment!