Monday, August 15, 2016

"Herbert West: Reanimator" (a book review post)

This is by far the longest piece by Lovecraft that I've read so far. Not because I'm avoiding his longer works but because, after reading several of his short stories, I decided to read his works in the order in which he wrote them. I don't know; I guess I just wanted to see the evolution of his writing.

It is in some ways disingenuous to say that this is a longer work. It is in actuality six short stories about the same two characters, Herbert West and his narrator assistant. Each story begins with a somewhat distracting recap of events which is meant to string the events of each episode together into a coherent whole. This is only partially successful as there is no need to have read any of the stories to be able to read any of the other stories except for the last one, "The Tomb-Legions," which requires that you have read all of the other pieces.

I have to say that this... I don't know, let's call it an experiment... was unsuccessful. Lovecraft called the story a parody of Frankenstein, but I don't think it succeeds even at that. It's too clumsy, both copying the novel and being unrelated to it at the same time. And, in the end, Lovecraft pulls in some of his unexplainable otherworldly esoterica to draw the story to an unsatisfying conclusion which is so unrelated to anything in Frankenstein that it manages to undermine any claim that this is a parody.
 It turns it into a poor attempt at stealing this particular story idea, that of bringing the dead back to life.

Lovecraft has some stylistic choices which specifically don't work in Herbert West:
1. Lovecraft is a "teller," not a "show-er." This robs his stories of immediacy and works against them being true horror. They might leave you feeling creepy, but it's difficult to ever feel any real fear for the characters since everything is told from some far removed point to the actual action.
2. He almost never uses dialogue, resorting, instead, to just telling us what was talked about. This follows point 1.
3. He cheats on descriptions (CONSTANTLY!) by telling us it's too unspeakable for words. Sorry, as a pattern (which it is), that's just deficient writing skills. Every once in a while, that can work to heighten just how horrible something is, but, when that's your go-to descriptive phrase, it shows that you just can't come up with anything.

The above points don't cause problems in any individual short story, but they cause longer works to drag and become uninteresting. Thankfully, even as a longer work, Herbert West wasn't all that long, and I was able to finish it, but I was glad when I did. I kept thinking as I was reading, "Geez! Just get to the point!" Unfortunately, the point wasn't really worth getting to.

19 comments:

  1. He had a formula and stuck with it.
    I'm sure the movie has little to do with the stories, but it was one twisted cult classic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alex: I'd say I'd try to watch it, but Netflix doesn't have it, so that probably won't happen.

      Delete
  2. I was going to leave you a thoughtful, high quality comment, but it was just too unspeakable for words.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've tried and failed to read Lovecraft several times. The descriptions of his worlds and monsters intrigue me, but I find the actual reading of the stories to be incredibly boring. I never make it very far before I say to myself, "This was a mistake."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael: If they were longer, I wouldn't have bothered with many of them. Most of them are short enough, though, that I shrug and read it anyway.

      Delete
  4. I really liked Reanimator, but I always find myself skipping the first paragraphs of each of the parts. I guess there's so much recap because it was originally a serial. And boy, does his racism shine through in the third part. It was bad even for him.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I still can't tell if you like him or not. You keep reading him, which I suppose is a good sign.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TAS: That might be because I can't tell if I like him or not. However, that I am reading something and even continuing to do so is not a sign you can pay attention to. I site the whole L'Engle thing as an example.

      Delete
    2. I see. Well I hope it's enlightening on some level.

      Delete
  6. It's starting to seem like Lovecraft's reputation maybe wasn't based purely on the merits of his stuff. Although, that was more the style back then, perhaps. Maybe editors back then kept marking up stuff with red pen marked "DON'T SHOW, TELL!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Briane: There is a certain amount of his style that is certainly rooted in the age in which he was writing, but the style of having one character tell some other character's story wasn't endemic. I'm not sure why chose to go that route with virtually every story he wrote.

      Delete
  7. Hm, is this something he got better at as he went along? He would almost have to, considering how famous he got, right? I think tracking an author's work in order is an interesting way to see how they progressed. I'm curious as to his growth as a writer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shannon: You know, he never got famous. He died a poor, unknown writer and, still, is mostly unknown. Cthulhu was made "famous" after his death because of a couple of other authors picking up on it and trying to co-opt it. Still, it didn't really become anything close to "famous" until the 70s, and that was all related to role playing games. He was and will remain a niche author, famous in his circle but almost unknown outside of it.

      Delete
  8. I have seen the movie Reanimator, which was bloody and fun, but not read the book. Was the movie based on the book?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. mshatch: I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know, and I couldn't find it on Netflix.

      Delete
  9. I often find I'm disappointed by older, classic writers for their over description or their unapproachable dialogue. I guess that's not Lovecraft's issue.
    Best,
    V:)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Veronica: Not the dialogue, that's for sure. He does have some annoying description things, though.

      Delete