Quote from: noisms;702792And most of it is crap. Lovecraft's a pretty mediocre writer at best. The ideas are occasionally great, which is why he's worth reading. Leiber, Moorcock and RE Howard are decent stylists but no great shakes - they're just entertaining storytellers. I think most OSR types hold them in such high esteem because they happen to be in Appendix N.

I agree 100%.  Most of the writing was published where it belonged.  In cheap pulp mags...

Quote from: noisms;702782Yeah yeah, you were incredibly intelligent, mature and discerning at that age, I'm sure.

I don't know. I certainly wasn't the only one in my gaming circles who read books from these authors at the same age and thought the Dragonlance novels were total shit by comparison, if that's what you're asking.

As I recall the DL books were early in the run, very early, and so served as a training exercise in what to do and what not to do. The first few attempts of anyone at anything will be crap, even on part of people who eventually produce good work. The DL books are bad, but they are also early product from people learning the ropes.

Quote from: noismsLovecraft's a pretty mediocre writer at best. The ideas are occasionally great, which is why he's worth reading.

Lovecraft's style is pretty idiosyncratic, but some scholars and critics (me included) find him a master prose stylist. He was recently added to the Library of America, which publishes "America's best and most significant writing."  Of course everyone's entitled to their own opinion - you might not enjoy Lovecraft - but he's accrued a huge deal of credibility and recognition since his pulp days, and not just in gaming circles.

Quote from: Steerpike;702833Lovecraft's style is pretty idiosyncratic, but some scholars and critics (me included) find him a master prose stylist.

In art that is meaningless.  Except to the critics & "scholars" that is.

Quote from: ArduinIn art that is meaningless. Except to the critics & "scholars" that is.

Not sure why scholars is in quotation marks.  By scholars I mean academic researchers who specialize in literature.  S.T. Joshi is probably the best known Lovecraftian scholar but there are many others who research and publish on Lovecraft.

Style is certainly not meaningless in art.  Lovecraft's prose can be gorgeously baroque, and a great deal of the atmospheric strangeness of his stories, the feeling of cosmic dread he conjures, and the nihilistic horror his monstrosities elicit is tied to his incredibly unique and unusual use of langauge.  If you really think that literary style plays no role in literary art... well, I don't know what to say to that.  You'd be wrong, though.

EDIT: You don't have to like Lovecraft, of course.  Lots of critics and scholars have maligned him, and some still do.  He is certainly not for everyone - I remeber you saying on another thread that you don't enjoy horror particularly, so perhaps he just doesn't work for you.  All I'm saying is that there's now a vocal following of fans, readers, academics, critics who strongly disagree, so he won't be relegated to the rubish-bin of literary history.  As Lovecraft himself says:

Quote from: H.P. Lovecraft...in spite of all this opposition the weird tale has survived, developed, and attained remarkable heights of perfection; founded as it is on a profound and elementary principle whose appeal, if not always universal, must necessarily be poignant and permanent to minds of the requisite sensitiveness.

Quote from: Steerpike;702839Not sure why scholars is in quotation marks.  By scholars I mean academic researchers who specialize in literature.

Because it was undefined.  But, as I stated, it isn't relevant.  The artists under discussion created for the general public.  It is there that the jury exists.

Popular reception is certainly one way to measure an artist's value.  I that case, Lovecraft is spectacularly successful - one of the most influential authors of the twentieth century.  His impact on popular culture has been immense and he remains in print and widely read across the world.  The man spawned a mythology.

It's worth noting, though, that Lovecraft, who liked to think of himself as a gentleman of refined tastes despite the considerable poverty in which he lived, would probably have preferred to be remembered as an important literary writer rather than a great and lastingly popular pulp writer (although he's now both).

Quote from: Benoist;702828I don't know. I certainly wasn't the only one in my gaming circles who read books from these authors at the same age and thought the Dragonlance novels were total shit by comparison, if that's what you're asking.

Quote from: noisms;702782Yeah yeah, you were incredibly intelligent, mature and discerning at that age, I'm sure.

I had similar experiences. Not to say there isn't a lot of books ostensibly aimed at young adults that are quite good: Prydain Chronicles, Watership Down, Treasure Island, those mystery books with Edward Gorey illustrations, not to mention the fairy tales and mythology anthologies I devoured. And quite a bit of fantasy that surpasses the genre: Gormenghast, Mythago Wood, Sandman, Gene Wolf's opus.

by the age of 13 I'd discovered pulp and splatter punk and those godawful Readers Digest Abridged Books that I was stuck with visiting my grandparents, and I remember discovering PK Dick at around that age. And my tastes were relatively discerning by that point. I found most fantasy published in the 80s rather depressingly bad, instilling a wariness that remains to this day, despite it being my favourite genre I'm extremely reluctant to pick up the majority of those trilogies/epics/sagas. So by the time Dragonlance came out, I was working my way backwards from Tolkien to Dunsany, Eddison, the Eldar Eddas...

I read the first two books of the Chronicles series, which did have quite gorgeous covers, but I don't remember much beyond thinking there was something really "Elfquest" about the writing (I'd not yet encountered Fanfic writing, but it had tropes, if you know what Im saying). And I remember gully dwarves with a seething hatred. I wasn't able to finish the second one. I found reading it a chore and was getting nothing out of it.

I'll forgive anything if its got enough imagination and passion behind it. It's why I can stand, even enjoy, Lovecraft. But for something called fantasy, those Dragonlance books seemed infuriatingly banal. I never looked twice at a novel associated with a D&D setting again (well, except to check out some of the cover art.)

In the 90s made one attempt to read one of the White Wolf books. Never again. Never, ever, again. If a book is good enough, it doesn't need an RPG  tie-in to get published.

Quote from: Steerpike;702842Popular reception is certainly one way to measure an artist's value.

Yes, it is the most objective & relevant.  Survey 1,000 random people and get their opinion.  If they even know of said artist.

Way behind the curve here, but in responding to the OP, it has to be Spelljammer.  I prefer Star Frontiers or Gamma World (1e) to that.

Quote from: ArduinYes, it is the most objective & relevant. Survey 1,000 random people and get their opinion. If they even know of said artist.

That's certainly one point of view, and there's a great deal of legitimacy to it.  I don't think it's the only standard by which to measure art.  I'd hazard, for example, that if you surveyed the public about Mozart's compositions and Lady Gaga's songs, most people would be able to name more Gaga songs than Mozart compositions.  That doesn't necessarily mean that Gaga is a more significant or aesthetically or musically superior artist to Mozart, just that she's more popular at this particular moment in history.  Attitudes and tastes and trends change shift, so tying aesthetic value solely to the popularity of an artist can be problematic.  I think Mervyn Peake is a better writer than Stephanie Meyer, but he's not as widely read; does that mean I'm "wrong" in valuing Peake more?  I don't think so, personally.  That's not to discount popular opinion - it's important in any consideration of an artist's work, no question about it, and there's value to looking at an author's continuing reception.

If we evaluate Lovecraft by popular opinion, though, he's spectacularly successful.  His works have not only influenced hundreds of authors and created an entire literary subgenre, they've been adapted in lots of different media (music, film, television, drama, pen and paper roleplaying, video games) and remain enduringly popular and well-read today.  Go to any major bookstore and you're very likely fo find collections of his work in print.  If we're going to use popular opinion as the criteria by which we judge a good writer, Lovecraft is a first-class writer.

Quote from: Steerpike;702833Lovecraft's style is pretty idiosyncratic, but some scholars and critics (me included) find him a master prose stylist. He was recently added to the Library of America, which publishes "America's best and most significant writing."  Of course everyone's entitled to their own opinion - you might not enjoy Lovecraft - but he's accrued a huge deal of credibility and recognition since his pulp days, and not just in gaming circles.

Lovecraft had an absolute tin ear for dialogue and wrote many stories that are complete bilge. I like him, and have read all his stories, and of course he's significant because he was so influential. But he was in no sense a master prose stylist.

TSR was absolutely great for giving relatively new authors their first chances. Some started off a bit shakey. But even so over time they show marked improvements if given a chance. Loraine may have effectively killed TSR, but she was a godsend to some writers for the chances she gave people either through direct novels or via short stories in Amazing. Lots of different styles and themes.

Same can be said for any other companies book lines. Theres going to be hits and misses. Though personally I've yet to like any Warhammer book and most of the White Wolf novels tens to be rather blah to me on the literary level. Theme doesnt help much either.

Other people love em.

Same with RPG settings. Some people despise post apoc but love space opera, some like high fantasy but dislike low fantasy.

Quote from: noismsLovecraft had an absolute tin ear for dialogue and wrote many stories that are complete bilge. I like him, and have read all his stories, and of course he's significant because he was so influential. But he was in no sense a master prose stylist.

Oh, his dialogue is just awful.  His (human) characters are usually pretty thin, too.  But his descriptions, the way he relays information, his atmosphere, and his pacing in his later stories - he excels at these things.  His style rubs some people the wrong way, but it's very unusual and distinctive, and many argue that it's absolutely integral to his particular brand of weird/cosmic horror.  Those who prefer minimalistic dialogue-driven prose tend to find Lovecraft absolutely aggravating; those who prefer lush, purple, atmospheric prose tend to enjoy him.

If people are interested in more discussion of Lovecraft, perhaps we should start a new thread?