Your favorite Lovecraft monster

[Bob Lovecraft]

Well, here comes the descenting (sp) vote: I loved Neonomicon. I know a ton of people were turned off because of the sex aspect of the story, and to be honest I think casting the main character as a recovering sex addict was a bit stupid, but I think it served to add a sense of uncomfortableness to the whole thing. People can get weirded out by kinky sex (and dear god especially when you combined it with Cthulhu stuff) and I think that was the point. I think all of the puns and heavy-handed references were in the story as a kind of slap in the face. Not punishing the reader, but rubbing his nose in the idea of Lovecraft's influence having become so ingrained in society that it was almost ubiquitous. Hell, one lady even uses the line "You fool, Warren is dead!" and let's face it, that was just a cruel reference that every one of the cultists just laughed sadistically at.

I will say this, though, that whenever I recommend this comic to someone, I ALWAYS warn them about the subject matter. This in not a comic for everyone.

Bob

[Ruth - CthulhuChick]

It's News from Pnakotus #26, in the literature section. From Chris's description, it's nothing I'd want to read.

I agree with Chris's take that I prefer conceptual horror to being grossed out. Definitely turned my stomach.

[T. Kelly Lee]

It's News from Pnakotus #26, in the literature section. From Chris's description, it's nothing I'd want to read.

I agree with Chris's take that I prefer conceptual horror to being grossed out. Definitely turned my stomach.

I think we could start a thread on this one.  I have the same exact issue with most horror - especially as it gets portrated in movies.  (And Stephen King novels.) 


What's the point of a horror story when the end result of your encounter with the monster is the SAME as the end result of your encounter with a speeding car?  Lovecraft's horror is existential. 

[JulieH]

To really get your mind blown on an existential level, though, you HAVE to resort to Borges. 

[DustyTome]

I think Moore could have achieved the same effect without resorting to the literary equivalent of hitting the reader repeatedly over the head with a two by four. This is Alan-freaking-Moore we're talking about. He's better than this. Every time I read Watchmen or Lost Girls, I find something new. He could have done the same thing with the rape scene, layered subtlety while making the reader recoil in horror.

It's News from Pnakotus #26, in the literature section. From Chris's description, it's nothing I'd want to read.

I agree with Chris's take that I prefer conceptual horror to being grossed out. Definitely turned my stomach.

It's News from Pnakotus #26, in the literature section. From Chris's description, it's nothing I'd want to read.

I agree with Chris's take that I prefer conceptual horror to being grossed out. Definitely turned my stomach.

I think we could start a thread on this one.  I have the same exact issue with most horror - especially as it gets portrated in movies.  (And Stephen King novels.) 

What's the point of a horror story when the end result of your encounter with the monster is the SAME as the end result of your encounter with a speeding car?  Lovecraft's horror is existential. 

While I disagree with the sentiment about King (sorry), I agree about the best horror being conceptual or existential. I hate slasher movies and gross-out horror. It just doesn't scare me.

The kind of thing that does scare me is exemplified by a scene I just reread in The Colour Out of Space, in which Ammi is stuck on the second floor listening to we-have-no-idea-what in the parlour. My mind filled in horrific details and the subtle way HPL sketched in some details was exquisite.

[Ruth - CthulhuChick]

I think Moore could have achieved the same effect without resorting to the literary equivalent of hitting the reader repeatedly over the head with a two by four. This is Alan-freaking-Moore we're talking about. He's better than this. Every time I read Watchmen or Lost Girls, I find something new. He could have done the same thing with the rape scene, layered subtlety while making the reader recoil in horror.

I agree, that's kind of the effect it had, which made me sad. I felt something similar with the sexuality (the bluntness vs. subtlety) in Moore's Century: 1969, but that's for another thread.

Regarding cerebral horror, I also have a strong gross-out reflex. I can't abide zombies. (Reanimated corpses that don't want to eat my brain are fine, however.) Slashing, blood, gore, I was raised by parents who never exposed me to any of that stuff....I barely saw any post-1950s films until my teens...(parents were born in '45, I was born in '85). So I don't cope well with that kind of horror. But I read a LOT and a lot of different stuff. So I think my brain responds much better than my gut. Hence why I fell for Lovecraft when I had never actually enjoyed horror before in my life (ok, short Dean Koontz kick because of a friend which lasted until the nightmares started). Now I'm learning more about the subtlety in the art.

[Inner Prop]

I'm with ya'll.  While I CAN stand to look at blood and guts, I don't think they are actually proper subjects for entertainment.  Getting your mind blown is one thing, getting it blown up is another.

To be able to sit through a slasher movie I have to force myself to look at it as just a movie and realize that there there was probably someone laying out sandwiches and getting lunch ready just off screen.  It takes you out of the story.

[KN Rainbow]

My fave Lovecraft monster are the elder things in @the Mountains of Madness. They're creepy and interesting at the same time. 

[LambethWarp]

My fave Lovecraft monster are the elder things in @the Mountains of Madness. They're creepy and interesting at the same time. 

Yes they're great creations, but are they really the 'monsters' in that story? The narrator even says "they were men", with regards to their cultural and scientific achievements, their artistic expression, curiosity and so on. The real monsters are the shoggoths, surely?