Literary continuity...

[Kryptych]

These are just some thoughts I have, so you may feel free to tell me that nobody cares or that the topic is ultimately uninteresting...

I have been enjoying H.P.Podcraft for a short time, but in my brief listening have I been inspired to pick up my book collection and attempt yet again to read certain stories that I'd previously ignored or felt incapable of understanding. I'm particularly anxious for the upcoming episode(s) to cover The Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath, a story I'd actually lost interest in several paragraphs in. One peculiarity of his work that I know has been addressed several times in these forums and rarely in the episodes' discussions... continuity.

For instance, in the episode for The Silver Key, guest Kenneth Hite had pointed out the divergence in chronology for Randolph Carter - "What're you trying to pull here, Lovecraft?!" to which Mr. Fifer joked about Lovecraft's "Retconning." Further complicating the chronology... if you read The Statement of Randolph Carter, he'd stated that he had "for five years been his closest friend," but in The Silver Key, he says he was "living with him and sharing his studies for seven years." A minor detail, but one that further indicates Mr. Hite's point about the inconsistency between the two stories. Also, in the episode for The Unnameable, I believe it was Mr. Lackey (though my memory could be failing me) who pointed out that the character is simply referred to as Carter with no other indication that it is indeed intended to be the same Randolph Carter (although the "curriculum vitae" - as Mr. Leman called it in The Statement... episode - detailed in The Silver Key would indicate that it probably is the same Randolph Carter.

Considering the several inconsistencies that will arise in later works (again, all in minor details - like the location of Leng or the extent of Nyarlathotep's powers and influence - that other writers like Lumley and Derleth would attempt to reconcile... or even further complicate in their expansions of Lovecraft's works), I don't think it's unusual for a writer to "retcon" past output. After all, Lovecraft did not map out an entire Mythos for Cthulhu or the Yog-Sothothian pantheon, nor do I think he did create a detailed biographical outline for Randolph Carter. Obviously, there are connections between the stories, and Lovecraft - as pointed out by Mr. Fifer and Mr. Lackey - did seem to enjoy going back to past stories and characters and fleshing them out and expanding their roles. What does it matter if the continuity between stories is at the very least dubious?

One could point to Arthur C. Clarke and his 2001 - 3001 series, and how each book to be released would effectively become obsolete (or at least inaccurate) to the reality of the time. Clarke himself has often said that each book takes place in its own parallel universe, sharing certain circumstances, but taking place at different points in time to account for the change in technology and science. As stated many times on the show, "This is not the [insert author's name] show. This is about H.P. Lovecraft." So, far be it from me to have to focus on or quote another author to account for these inconsistencies and "errors" in Lovecraft's continuity. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had once said, "It has always seemed to me that so long as you produce your dramatic effect, accuracy of detail matters little. I have never striven for it and I have made some bad mistakes in consequence. What matter if I hold my readers?"

And hold his readers, I think, Lovecraft has been able to do!

Thanks to everybody here, and especially to Mr. Fifer and Mr. Lackey for the wonderful podcast.

[xalidus]

Well, the way I see it, is that many of these stories are told in the first-person point of view and people tend to make mistakes. If someone asked me how long I've been working for the company I work at I might blurt out five years, but when I get a chance to think about it I know it has probably been seven or eight years. This explaination is only something I use in order to make things make sense in my head. I know in reality Lovecraft just wasn't keeping a close watch on some of the facts as he built up his own continuity. It's pretty common for writers to make mistakes like that as they try to feel their way through a world of their own making.

[Padz]

It's an easy excuse, is it not, for a writer to say just because he muddled his own sequel/sequels?

[old book]

Five years versus seven DOES show versimilitude in my opinion. Also, the inconsistencies in the map of the dream world are intentional.

[Kryptych]

Xalidus - "...as they try to feel their way through a world of their own making."
Exactly, and as Lovecraft seemed to enjoy encouraging other writers of his generation and younger up-and-coming writers, I think while he didn't lay out a specific continuity in his own head, he liked the idea of his peers taking those ideas and characters and running with them as Derleth, Howard, Loveman, etc... did.

Padz - "It's an easy excuse..."
Perhaps. Do you object to it? Not to start an argument, I'm just genuinely curious.

Old Book - "... are intentional."
Are they? Granted, they are the product of dreams and so they should be inconsistent, as well as the verisimilitude between five and seven years (and tying in with Xalidus' point about these stories being first-person, and thus people do make mistakes in their recollections)... I think that's just another way to look at the inconsistencies in a logical light. Is there evidence that Lovecraft intended for that to be the case? I'm curious, because it would seem simply to be another way of saying, "What does it matter? You're entertained. It's fiction, the product of the author's dreams."

In all honesty, I was just addressing the issue as I've had friends and acquaintances who've told me that they can't appreciate Lovecraft's work because of these inconsistencies, versus someone like Tolkien who has his entire world and mythology mapped out.

[Chrizzie Frizzie]

A couple of things spring to mind:

1. I'm sure it was more difficult back then to create consistent worlds over a whole literary career compared to today. After all, all his writing was on paper so doing a "find..." command didn't work. That could explain simple discontinuities such as the Carter mistakes.
2. More significant mythical differences did not bother Lovecraft. I think he wrote in his letters that inconsistencies is one of the fundamental characteristics of myths, since they are corrupted through re-telling.
3. My impression is that Lovecraft primarily saw himself as a word-smith and atmosphere-builder. I think the concept of consistency across stories was not high on his list of priorities, and as the Carter discrepancy shew, possibly not even ON the list. He just wanted to tell a good yarn.  I think his references back to previous tales were mostly for the purpose of building atmosphere, a way to instill realism into a tale. He wrote for himself and his peers, who were more interested in his writing than in the specifics. Only later did he develop a fan-base, and I'd expect that for most buyers of Weird Tales, getting a back-issue to check consistency was quite difficult unless you were a collector.
4. The more I think about it, the more intriguing it becomes. When did fan-dom emerge in the way it exists today (a la the comics guy in Simpsons)? I mean, Lovecraft was the Alpha-Fan, but I'd compare him more to someone who is a fan of an inker today, rather than a follower of a particular hero or writer. That is, more interested in the craft than in the actual story. I wonder, was it Tolkien that created this phenomenon, writing several books and short stories all fitting into the same universe?

[Kryptych]

In response to Chrizzie Frizzie...

1. I'm sure it would have been very difficult to build a consistent literary world unless the author suffered from OCD and maintained some high level of absolute organization that would lead even his/her peers to balk in contempt. I'm sure had Lovecraft, being as eccentric (perhaps even neurotic) as he was, been that obsessive about maintaining any continuity, he would have completely alienated even his circle of friends and fellow writers. Either that, or they would have revered him even more than they already did for having that level of dedication and attention to detail. Who can say?
2. Very much as Xalidus had stated, I completely agree that the stories, or myths as they do tend to take on that level of grandeur, are corrupted through re-telling... either for the sake of sensationalism on the part of the storyteller or simply by virtue of the "unreliable narrator."
3. I agree and that relates to the Conan Doyle quote in that it was about holding his readers, and what better way than to create an atmosphere and use language that draws the listener in? Even if it means the reader has to keep checking the dictionary, it is likely to keep conscientious readers revisiting the stories, and hopefully gaining further understanding in the process. Or it'll alienate those readers who will ultimately say, "Will you please speak English?"
4. Now THAT is a great question! Personally, I've never been a fan of Tolkien, especially his writing style, but the stories haven't been known to grab me either... I was actually rather upset to hear that Guillermo Del Toro would not be directing The Hobbit (if Peter Jackson's gonna produce it, he might as well go the full nine and just direct the bloody thing), because even though he says it's not likely he'll get to do At the Mountains of Madness as a film, I would think it more likely if he could make The Hobbit a hit. Granted, the Hellboy films and Pan's Labyrinth were well received, but The Hobbit I think would've sealed the deal for him. Alas...

[old book]

All good and interesting points, Kryptych and Chrizzie Frizzie.

"intentional" in the sense of letting it remain discontinuous in the spirit of the dream, rather than fixing it.

Dream-Quest IS the map, but the map changes as you look at it.

We're asked to come to the material from the dreamer's standpoint rahter than the novelist's or filmmaker's. To iron all the chaos out would be to iron out the dream itself. The map of dreamland is left vague and lacking certain continuities on purpose. I can't speak to Carter knowing someone for five or living with that same someone for seven years. From my perspective it doesn't make a difference. Maybe there was an intervening period when Carter was away visiting an aunt

[Viatorium Press]

I read in one of the Lovecraft letters, (can't recall which one at the moment) that Lovecraft was entirely disenchanted with the idea of a serial character going through a set of incidents from one story to the next. I think he took the liberties because he felt the continuity wasn't important. I think I like the imprecision of Lovecraft. He does it in most of his stories, doing things like using the same name for different entities, confusing many of us. He never set up an overall plan. The idea of a codified Mythos probably seemed silly to him, as he used many of the devices as background effect to bump up the terror of the main narrative. I think Lovecraft would be less scary and wondrous to read if he had perfectly systematized everything. I like that feel of dreamlike vagueness and the obscurity that is retained allows the imagination to soar.

[Padz]

...
Padz - "It's an easy excuse..."
Perhaps. Do you object to it? Not to start an argument, I'm just genuinely curious.
...

Hello Kryptych.

To answer your question, both yes and no... I actully went back to the stories and have slightly revised my opinion (grumbles). The statement of Randolph Carter is told by Carter himself whilst the Silver Key is narrated by someone else and who that person is not very clear. It is someone who knows Carter reasonably well but he isn't Carter so therefore I can live with the continuity faults as that makes more sense than to have someone tell the details without any faults.

But the Silver Key, now that I look at it more closely, doesn't really make sense as the narrator is talking about Carter in a way that almost makes me feel that the narrator has been with Carter but more like a spirit or some disembodied, invisible onlooker... Another dreamer perchance?

Otherwise, unless there are clear reasons for the differences of the facts in stories, I'm annoyed with them...