Out of the Shadows. James Arthur Anderson
Begins correspondence with Clark Ashton Smith.
Visits Galpin and Loveman in Cleveland.
“The Lurking Fear.”
1923 First story to Weird Tales. “The Rats in the Walls.”
1924 Marries Sonia Greene in NY. Moves to Brooklyn. Turns down editorship of Weird Tales. Searches for work.
“The Shunned House.”
1925 Sonia leaves for Cincinnati, then Cleveland.
“The Horror at Red Hook.”
“He,” and “In the Vault.”
1926 Returns to Providence at 10 Barnes St.
Begins correspondence with August Derleth.
“The Call of Cthulhu,” “The Silver Key,” “Pickman’s Model.”
1927 The Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath completed.
The Case of Charles Dexter Ward.
“The Colour Out of Space.”
First anthology appearance—“The Horror at Red Hook.”
Included in 3rd volume of British Not at Night series.
1928 Travels through Vermont and Mass.
Brief reunion with Sonia.
“The Dunwich Horror.”
1929 Divorce granted; fails to file final papers.
1930 “The Mound” completed.
“Fungi from Yuggoth” completed.
“The Whisperer in the Darkness.”
Begins correspondence with R.E. Howard.
Trip to Quebec.
1931 At the Mountains of Madness.
“The Shadow over Innsmouth.”
Trip to Florida.
1932 Visits E. Hoffmann Price in New Orleans.
Death of Lillian D. Clark.
“The Dreams in the Witch House.”
1933 Moves to College Street with Annie Gamwell.
Through the Gates of the Silver Key completed.
“The Thing on the Doorstep.”
1934-35 Stays with Robert H. Barlow in Florida.
“The Shadow out of Time.”
“The Haunter of the Dark.”
1936 “The Shadow over Innsmouth” published by small press.
1937 Dies on March 15 of colon cancer.
INTRODUCTION
Although Howard Phillips Lovecraft (1890-1937) is generally recognized as one of the world’s finest writers of horror and science fiction, his work has received little critical attention outside the genres to which it has conveniently been categorized. While some excellent critical work has been accomplished in Lovecraft studies, it has, for the most part, been written by dedicated amateurs and fans rather than by mainstream scholars and critics, who tend to avoid the genre-type work of Lovecraft and his peers (Cannon, 24). As a result, the study of Lovecraft has been forced into the shadows of literary criticism, where it has become more closely associated with science fiction and horror than with the study of more privileged kinds of literature.
There are, in fact, many who would say that Lovecraft should remain in the shadows, that his work is strictly hack writing designed for the pulp magazines of his time. Critics such as Edmund Wilson have ridiculed Lovecraft’s “concocted myth” (47) and fantastic ideas, while praising the realistic work of his contemporaries (Hemingway, Dos Passos, and others). And even today, Lovecraft is seldom represented in mainstream anthologies of short fiction or American literature, and is generally not taught as part of twentieth century American literature. This, I believe, is because Lovecraft has yet to be fully understood and appreciated by mainstream critics, who see him only as a writer of the “weird tale.”
Yet even as Lovecraft is dismissed or ignored by mainstream critics, he still has endured, becoming more popular after his death than he ever was during his lifetime. Although his work was never published in book form while he lived, all of his fiction remains in print today, both in the Arkham House hardcover editions (revised by S. T. Joshi to be as textually accurate as possible), and in mass market paperback editions. Furthermore, Lovecraft remains one of the most widely anthologized authors in the horror and science fiction genres. Thus, despite the lack of scholarly attention to his work, H. P. Lovecraft refuses to go away.
In this study, I will take Lovecraft out of the shadows of literature and shine the light of critical theory on his works as I analyze them as mainstream stories. Using a structuralist critical theory as my underlying method, my analysis will show that Lovecraft’s work expresses many of the realistic themes of his contemporaries. While his stories may appear fantastic, they are based on naturalism, which Lovecraft takes to the N’th degree through a cosmic context. While Hemingway’s world might be cruel and unforgiving, individual characters can, at least, leave some mark on the world. In Lovecraft’s universe, however, the individual is but a flea, incapable of even understanding the world, let alone of influencing it.
Lovecraft deviates from his peers by using fantastic devices to express realistic themes. This technique allows him to expand the universe beyond the limits found in traditional fiction in order to show humankind’s relationship to the infinite cosmos. His combination of science fiction with horror has created the concept of “cosmic horror,” a far more depressing and pessimistic view than naturalism. Lovecraft, who believed in man’s fundamental triviality, expressed this philosophy through fantasy and science fiction, the most logical and effective devices with which to reveal human insignificance.
In taking Lovecraft out of the shadows, I will use structuralist critical theory as my underlying method to shed light on the major themes and narrative devices of his work. Yet unlike traditional structuralist studies, mine will use an eclectic approach designed to illuminate the meaning of the fiction rather than produce an essay on structuralist technique. This approach will use several theories, including those of Roland Barthes (S/Z), Gerard Genette, Robert Scholes, Claude Lévi-Strauss, and others as needed. Where appropriate, I will also utilize traditional critical methods, observations of other Lovecraft scholars, and Lovecraft’s own theories about fiction and literature as revealed in his letters and nonfiction writings.
I realize that these methods were never intended to be used in the ways I will employ them. Although a “pure” structuralist would never approve of my interpretive technique, I feel that these various techniques “complement one another in addressing the fictional text from different angles” (Scholes, Semiotics 87) and that they can be an effective form of textual analysis. I will freely adapt these methods as needed in analyzing each particular story to achieve my goal of understanding Lovecraft’s fiction.
Perhaps the most difficult part of my work has involved choosing the specific stories for analysis, and I must confess that my choices are partly based on personal preference. I have tried to achieve a representative mixture of stories, including some of Lovecraft’s early work as well as his later and best-known stories. In each of these stories I have attempted to highlight specific themes and techniques through a variety of structuralist and other critical methods.
Rather than analyze the stories chronologically, I have arranged my analysis in three parts. Part One examines four of Lovecraft’s most well-known and widely reprinted stories in depth using structuralist methodology. I begin my discussion with “The Shadow Over Innsmouth,” where I take the reader “into the shadows” and introduce Lovecraft’s major themes and techniques; the remaining analyses in this section are more scientific and purely structuralist, utilizing the theories of Roland Barthes and Gerard Genette. My use of critical theory in this section attempts to analyze Lovecraft from an unbiased, “scientific”