A friend and professor at school suggested after reading my work that I should invest some time into reading a few H.P. Lovecraft stories, not because they were necessarily "good" from a technical standpoint, but because they were the root of atmospheric horror and a primary influence for almost everyone currently working in that genre. This is a statement that I have come to understand from experience to be a rather consistent, overriding fact... it's hard to get through much in the horror genre without knowing anything about Cthulhu, Dagon and Nyarlathotep.
Since I am by no means a Lovecraft expert, having read only perhaps a half-dozen of his works thusfar, I am simply going to start at this point by writing my initial reactions as I recall them to particular aspects of a few individual stories first, and then I shall try to widen my scope and explain what I see on a larger scale developing in my reactions to this writer.
I first read a tale entitled, "The Hound." This is easily a favorite of the stories I have read of Lovecraft thusfar, primarily because he managed to create a work that made my stomach turn on a number of levels. An atmosphere of terror permeates this little tale, from the gruesome and rather diabolical nocturnal activities of the main character and his friend to the ultimate consequences resultant in the character's disregard for the power of what they had disturbed. The general structure of the story is sound, as the main character takes us through the actions of himself and his friend which led to his current pitiful and mortally terrified state. I enjoyed the simplicity and sparseness of description in this particular work, and found that these elements combined to illustrate the character's unnamed horror. Lovecraft managed to hit on the right balance in this work of the wide emptiness of mortified horror coupled with just the right descriptive terminology and narrative structure to leave the reader understanding and fearful of the ultimate moral: be careful, kiddies, of the power with which you play!
I found myself rolling my eyes during "The Statement of Randolph Carter" as I began to realize the evidence of what my friend had implied when he had warned me about some of the "technical shortfalls" of Lovecraft's work. The author's complete refusal to describe what the main characters were pursuing or why supported only by the rather shoddy excuse from the confessor of not being able to remember (a sort of post-traumatic amnesia) was exceptionally irksome to read. As a writer myself, I can usually recognize a cop-out employed due to writer's block when I see it, and this had all the symptoms of being such. However, I had partially forgiven him by the end of the work as the ominous, unknown creature the pair had awakened spoke through the telephone box out of the darkness. I must admit I chuckled with a bit of wicked glee as the creature spoke the tale's final words through the receiver with what I perceived as a tone of absolute disgust with the silly monkeys that had interrupted its solace. I can certainly understand that perspective, and found myself rather amused that I ended the story liking and understanding the creature much more than the spineless title character.
In the interest of space and my own time at this early hour, I am going to only reference one more work at this time: "Nyarlathotep." As I look back at this work, I must admit to a bit of a bias toward it, as the character himself is so marvelously and mysteriously constructed that the rest of the tale could easily be complete tripe and I would still find this a worthy read. My religious affiliation has no small degree of effect upon my perception of this character as well, as he rather eloquently personifies my experience (something which I will not elaborate upon here), so I feel I can identify with this character, probably in a manner in which others will not. However, the story essentially is the description of the mystery and power of this particular character over those who experienced him and the story is therefore shrouded in similar power and mystery. I found some of his adjectives a little bit lacking and prosaic, but this is yet again a technical complaint that I tended to forgive by the end of the work when I saw the character developed in all his awe-full glory.
"Nyarlathotep" is yet another story that does not suffer for sparseness; the mystery of Nyarlathotep is what gives him some further degree of power, as does the mystery of how what appears to be a resurrected Pharaoh can have such extensive knowledge and understanding of modern science and psychology. The story rather cleverly alludes to the success of ancient wisdom and magic which would have flown directly in the face of the pompous materialist perspective existent among the "educated populous" at the time (and which, of course, still exists today). The rather backhanded rumination that lurks behind this narrative most certainly gives the work much more depth as the reader contemplates the possibilities of this very specific ancient power rising up from among the Egyptian sands.
Overall, I'd have to say that I do find many aspects of H.P. Lovecraft's work worth attention, not because of the prowess of his writing skill (which can be, at times, somewhat hit-and-miss), but because of what his work ultimately became. While I think sometimes he is subject to a bit of overblown hype (much like Edgar Allan Poe), that is not his issue and is really not his fault. I think I can also forgive Lovecraft to some degree because the openness of some of his narratives leaves the reader free to explore the darkness and manifest their own horror. Though sometimes it seems this technique falls through for him, the times it does work in his writing, he creates an atmosphere that is an immersive abyss of darkness.
Lovecraft's ability to ignite the dark imagination of so many people (and sometimes even create a genuine belief in the reality of his characters) is not an impact that can be easily ignored. While his "good guy" characters are often rather forgettable, the creatures that climb out from the Underworld in his tales inspire a mortified awe as the reader is shoved headfirst into the darkness with no discernible escape from its presence. Lovecraft launches his readers into the arms of a Darkness which is all-encompassing and all powerful and challenges his reader to confront and, perhaps, ultimately submit to its overwhelming presence. He has brought the face of the Abyss to life in the minds and the lives of the masses, so he is certainly due no small degree of credit for that success.
Copyright 2005 S.L. Olson
26 June 2005
17 June 2005
Feminism?
I find the twisted perspective of some women who currently call themselves feminists to be absolutely disgusting.
Although I have met some genuinely interesting feminists who are truly in favor of equality between men and women, many women who currently call themselves feminists are some of the most sexist people I have ever met. Most "feminists" of this variety consider women superior to men and waste no time telling you at every opportunity about the inferiority of the opposite sex. They work actively toward a culture of division and stereotype and work for greater stratification between genders rather than less. These "psuedo-feminists" actively strive to put men on the bottom of the totem pole, apparently for the purpose of "getting back" at the male gender for their "oppression" of the past (none of which was often actually experienced by them).
I cannot conceptualize strong enough language to express how grossly sick this brand of sexism makes me feel.
There are places in the world where feminism is still exceptionally relevant. There are many areas in which cultures have been groomed to exclude and demean women where women need to organize and be strong together in resisting tyranny to create a more equal playing field. There are places where religion is used as an excuse to reduce women to a slave class. And yes, some of these places do still exist in the United States and Europe. However, for the most part, women who are fortunate to exist in the United States are outside of the need to even bother with feminism in this form anymore, as, in most cases, women are actually given false advantage over men based solely upon their gender (as any man who has ever attempted to get a small business loan could likely express). Women have been given the Constitutional right to equal protection under the law, and those women who act in such a sexist manner toward men and still insist upon trying to push for feminine superiority rather than equality are totally blind and dumb to the damage they are doing to the image of the feminist on both a cultural and international level.
As an example of this, women in America currently have amazing power over the marketplace. Advertising from the past decade or so reflects this fact, as even manufacturers known for catering to formerly "male dominated" venues, such as Nike, began redirecting their advertising dollars toward catching the female eye. Women now are the center of the American universe, and are portrayed as Goddesses and "Super Moms" while men are often portrayed in television and other media as unintelligent, lazy, and single-minded (unless they happen to be gay). These stereotypes feed belief and preconceived notions that foster division, rather than unity, among the sexes. This exploitation of stereotypes wouldn't bother me so much if I didn't see so much evidence that so many people hold so firmly to the belief that these unfair perspectives were ultimately true.
Feminism is not a weapon to be used to take out one's aggression for being "damaged" by some heartless creature who happened to be male. It is not some ridiculous primate dominance game used to lord one's perceived superiority over another of their species. Feminism was, and should always be, about creating a society of equality and achievement based upon merit rather than an accident of X and Y chromosomes.
I would be grateful if every single female reading these words would take a long, hard look at herself and ask whether she was being unfair and sexist to the other half of the species. Sexism goes both ways, and it's well beyond time for women to recognize when they are being hypocritical and dividing, rather than uniting, the human species.
Copyright 2005 S.L. Olson
Although I have met some genuinely interesting feminists who are truly in favor of equality between men and women, many women who currently call themselves feminists are some of the most sexist people I have ever met. Most "feminists" of this variety consider women superior to men and waste no time telling you at every opportunity about the inferiority of the opposite sex. They work actively toward a culture of division and stereotype and work for greater stratification between genders rather than less. These "psuedo-feminists" actively strive to put men on the bottom of the totem pole, apparently for the purpose of "getting back" at the male gender for their "oppression" of the past (none of which was often actually experienced by them).
I cannot conceptualize strong enough language to express how grossly sick this brand of sexism makes me feel.
There are places in the world where feminism is still exceptionally relevant. There are many areas in which cultures have been groomed to exclude and demean women where women need to organize and be strong together in resisting tyranny to create a more equal playing field. There are places where religion is used as an excuse to reduce women to a slave class. And yes, some of these places do still exist in the United States and Europe. However, for the most part, women who are fortunate to exist in the United States are outside of the need to even bother with feminism in this form anymore, as, in most cases, women are actually given false advantage over men based solely upon their gender (as any man who has ever attempted to get a small business loan could likely express). Women have been given the Constitutional right to equal protection under the law, and those women who act in such a sexist manner toward men and still insist upon trying to push for feminine superiority rather than equality are totally blind and dumb to the damage they are doing to the image of the feminist on both a cultural and international level.
As an example of this, women in America currently have amazing power over the marketplace. Advertising from the past decade or so reflects this fact, as even manufacturers known for catering to formerly "male dominated" venues, such as Nike, began redirecting their advertising dollars toward catching the female eye. Women now are the center of the American universe, and are portrayed as Goddesses and "Super Moms" while men are often portrayed in television and other media as unintelligent, lazy, and single-minded (unless they happen to be gay). These stereotypes feed belief and preconceived notions that foster division, rather than unity, among the sexes. This exploitation of stereotypes wouldn't bother me so much if I didn't see so much evidence that so many people hold so firmly to the belief that these unfair perspectives were ultimately true.
Feminism is not a weapon to be used to take out one's aggression for being "damaged" by some heartless creature who happened to be male. It is not some ridiculous primate dominance game used to lord one's perceived superiority over another of their species. Feminism was, and should always be, about creating a society of equality and achievement based upon merit rather than an accident of X and Y chromosomes.
I would be grateful if every single female reading these words would take a long, hard look at herself and ask whether she was being unfair and sexist to the other half of the species. Sexism goes both ways, and it's well beyond time for women to recognize when they are being hypocritical and dividing, rather than uniting, the human species.
Copyright 2005 S.L. Olson
16 June 2005
Aesthetic Terrorism
I have been away from this journal for a little while, due primarily to the fact that I have had a great deal of success in writing for my book, so I haven't had much need for the writing exercise of this journal. But I've hit a little bit of a dry spot, so I think it's time to write a little more here and see if I can get my brain working a little bit before I return to the exploits of Zeus, Apollo, Paris and Cassandra.
My thoughts today have been centered around a phrase coined by Rex Church regarding his art in particular: "Aesthetic Terrorism." I was recently introduced to this term when I visited his website for the first time, and have rather enjoyed rolling the two words in conjunction around in my head in relationship to not only Mr. Church's art, but also certain forms of art in general. I can only begin to scratch the surface of my thoughts here in this short article, so this train of thought is very likely to re-emerge at a later date somewhere in my journal, but I felt it was better to try to give at least an introduction to what I have recently found to be an intriguing perspective than to leave these thoughts rattling around in my brain unwritten.
I looked up the term "terrorism" for greater clarification and found this:
Terrorism: ter-ror-ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun:
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.
Coercion is hopefully a familiar word to all reading this, but if not, know that it is essentially synonomous with the imposition of force.
In the wake particularly of the events of a few years ago on 11 September, the current connotation of this particular word has likely made this phrase relatively controversial. However, this is partially why I find this phrase intriguing, because it brings to mind a forced confrontation... an imposition of presence upon those who may not necessarily be ready or able to deal with the disturbing nature of what they are seeing. While many people like the thrill of scary movies, skydiving, or roller coasters, most people shrink from the induction of true terror that shakes the foundations of their psyche.
While they have not used this particular term, artists have been employing this practice for quite some time to reveal the darkness that humanity has endeavored to run from even as that darkness bears its face to the world. Probably Picasso's most disturbing work, Guernica, would be the most prominent example of this. Guernica is a gigantic painting which portrays the horror of the destruction of the Spanish city of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War. This massive piece is disturbing in its disjointedness, and to stand in its presence is to be exposed to the horror of death and wanton destruction. There is no romanticism of "heroic loss" here. Instead, the viewer standing in the presence of this incredible depiction of terror is inspired to feel as broken as the people and creatures the painting portrays. In all its mortifying honesty, this is an early example of aesthetic terrorism, a work that forces the viewer to stand at the mouth of death see the inherent terror of its result.
Of course, the world of visual art is not the only venue which can express this type of experience. Within this perspective, the concept of "Aural Terrorism" has also been popular for some time, as there have been a number of composers, particularly in the past half-century or so, who have pushed humanity toward the darkness of its nature in the construction of their work. Composers such as Alban Berg and Arnold Schoenberg used dissonance and a lack of tonal resolution to create the same result in the listener that Church and Picasso utilize in the visual world. Writers such as T.S. Eliot, Dylan Thomas, and Peter Shaffer do not shrink from the imposition of "Literate Terrorism" in their work, either, imposing images upon the mind in their work that can keep the thinking mind up for days contemplating the horror that their writing reveals.
The most terrifying aspect of this entire perspective is probably that, unlike the scary movies and thrill rides, these artists do not typically express these horrifying images "for fun," so that people can have a thrilling little scream and then walk away from their faux fear into their lives and forget what they witnessed. The terror these works instill sticks with the person who experiences it, because it reveals a darkness that is much more present and more real than a possessed doll with a carving knife. These dreams step out into the daylight... They walk among the mass of humanity, and they force people to confront the darkness in their psyche. This terror is real and it is awe-full. In forcing this perspective into the open, the artist reveals the darkness and forces those with eyes to see and ears to hear to confront and move through it.
While terrorism in its most common connontation is viewed as a cowardly, heinous act, the act of "aesthetic terrorism" is an act which can force enrichment and growth. The encounter may be, at the very least, an uncomfortable confrontation for the experiencer, but the person who stares into its terror with open eyes will find himself wiser and enriched on the other side of his fear.
Copyright 2005 S.L. Olson
My thoughts today have been centered around a phrase coined by Rex Church regarding his art in particular: "Aesthetic Terrorism." I was recently introduced to this term when I visited his website for the first time, and have rather enjoyed rolling the two words in conjunction around in my head in relationship to not only Mr. Church's art, but also certain forms of art in general. I can only begin to scratch the surface of my thoughts here in this short article, so this train of thought is very likely to re-emerge at a later date somewhere in my journal, but I felt it was better to try to give at least an introduction to what I have recently found to be an intriguing perspective than to leave these thoughts rattling around in my brain unwritten.
I looked up the term "terrorism" for greater clarification and found this:
Terrorism: ter-ror-ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun:
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.
Coercion is hopefully a familiar word to all reading this, but if not, know that it is essentially synonomous with the imposition of force.
In the wake particularly of the events of a few years ago on 11 September, the current connotation of this particular word has likely made this phrase relatively controversial. However, this is partially why I find this phrase intriguing, because it brings to mind a forced confrontation... an imposition of presence upon those who may not necessarily be ready or able to deal with the disturbing nature of what they are seeing. While many people like the thrill of scary movies, skydiving, or roller coasters, most people shrink from the induction of true terror that shakes the foundations of their psyche.
While they have not used this particular term, artists have been employing this practice for quite some time to reveal the darkness that humanity has endeavored to run from even as that darkness bears its face to the world. Probably Picasso's most disturbing work, Guernica, would be the most prominent example of this. Guernica is a gigantic painting which portrays the horror of the destruction of the Spanish city of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War. This massive piece is disturbing in its disjointedness, and to stand in its presence is to be exposed to the horror of death and wanton destruction. There is no romanticism of "heroic loss" here. Instead, the viewer standing in the presence of this incredible depiction of terror is inspired to feel as broken as the people and creatures the painting portrays. In all its mortifying honesty, this is an early example of aesthetic terrorism, a work that forces the viewer to stand at the mouth of death see the inherent terror of its result.
Of course, the world of visual art is not the only venue which can express this type of experience. Within this perspective, the concept of "Aural Terrorism" has also been popular for some time, as there have been a number of composers, particularly in the past half-century or so, who have pushed humanity toward the darkness of its nature in the construction of their work. Composers such as Alban Berg and Arnold Schoenberg used dissonance and a lack of tonal resolution to create the same result in the listener that Church and Picasso utilize in the visual world. Writers such as T.S. Eliot, Dylan Thomas, and Peter Shaffer do not shrink from the imposition of "Literate Terrorism" in their work, either, imposing images upon the mind in their work that can keep the thinking mind up for days contemplating the horror that their writing reveals.
The most terrifying aspect of this entire perspective is probably that, unlike the scary movies and thrill rides, these artists do not typically express these horrifying images "for fun," so that people can have a thrilling little scream and then walk away from their faux fear into their lives and forget what they witnessed. The terror these works instill sticks with the person who experiences it, because it reveals a darkness that is much more present and more real than a possessed doll with a carving knife. These dreams step out into the daylight... They walk among the mass of humanity, and they force people to confront the darkness in their psyche. This terror is real and it is awe-full. In forcing this perspective into the open, the artist reveals the darkness and forces those with eyes to see and ears to hear to confront and move through it.
While terrorism in its most common connontation is viewed as a cowardly, heinous act, the act of "aesthetic terrorism" is an act which can force enrichment and growth. The encounter may be, at the very least, an uncomfortable confrontation for the experiencer, but the person who stares into its terror with open eyes will find himself wiser and enriched on the other side of his fear.
Copyright 2005 S.L. Olson
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
