The Rise and Fall Of The Cthulhu Mythos Book

This is an amazing feat by S. T. Joshi. Agree with him or not--you are sure to find thorough and opinionated comments about the stories written in the bizarre sub-genre known as the Cthulhu Mythos (CM). By a man who is more than well-equipped to have a say about it all; few, if any, have read so much as S. T. Joshi when it comes to the weird tale genre.

Contrary to common belief, Joshi is not per se against stories that are of the so-called CM variety. What he does have a problem with is if they are without genuine literary and/or philosophical merit. That's a high standard, and many are bound to fail meeting it. I am sure many will think that is demanding too much, but I must say that on the whole I agree with Joshi's stance--a stance originating from the Master himself: H. P. Lovecraft (HPL).

Early on Joshi sets out to explicate what criteria he thinks a so-called CM story must meet to fairly be categorized as such a tale; and these criteria are, not surprisingly, different from what can more correctly be called a "Lovecraftian" tale. I am not sure I agree completely with the details in what he says here, but the division as such is of course sound and wise. And by doing this it also helps the reader understand Joshi's approach when commenting on the development of the CM from HPL's time to the present. It is good to know so clearly on what grounds Joshi critizes the works he critize, as well as why he praise the ones he praise (and there are quite a lot of these, btw!).

The main bulk of the book examins the development of tales that can be said to be CM stories, beginning with HPL's own work, going through his contemporaries' work; through Derleth and his fatal misunderstanding of HPL's worldview and actual ideas of what he ultimately tried to reach in his (later) stories; through the next decades and up to writers in our time, incl. Ramsey Campbell, Thomas Ligotti, W. H. Pugmire, Donald Tyson, Neil Gaiman, and even a few words about Stephen King. The latter is surprising--knowing the low esteem Joshi has of King's oeuvre--but he actually says some fairly praising words about King's The Dark Half; whereas, btw, he isn't too keen on the short story "Jerusalem's Lot." Re. King I am surprised that there is no mention whatsoever of King's From a Buick 8, but that is probably because it's a peeve of mine--I think this is King's ultimate "Lovecraftian story," and succesfully so! Oh well, you can't satisfy all;-)

Not surprisingly Joshi has harsh words about August Derleth. It is important to emphasise, however--as Joshi does--that the critique of Derleth is not aimed at the warping of the Mythos many in the know nowadays refer to as "the Derleth Mythos," but was then thought of (thanks to Derleth) as the CM. Here, clearly spelled out, is Joshi's reasons for his severe judgment of Derleth:

Derleth was within his rights to pen as many Cthulhu Mythos tales as he wished. But he was not within his rights to foist his interpretation of the Mythos on to Lovecraft, as he did repeatedly in article after article, and he was not within his rights to claim that his "posthumous collaborations" were anything but stories entirely conceived and written on his own and which widely departed from what Lovecraft himself would have done had he written them." (p. 202)

I agree with Joshi. (A side-note: Later this year I will be publishing a little book with scholarship on August Derleth and his influence on the weird tale till his death in 1971, written by Derleth scholar John Haefele, which sheds favourable light on Derleth in that area; it must not be forgotten that he did, in fact, do a lot of good as well.)

I have a suspicion many who dislike Joshi's judgment on this or that story just don't understand Joshi's stance. For instance, many have wondered--for many years now--how he can possibly think so little of HPL's "The Dunwich Horror," which to many readers is a superb story. Well, the reason is simple--this is a story that fails to meet HPL's own standards; standards that, in fact, also point to where HPL is truly creating something new in literature as a whole. The keywords here are his cosmicism and the indifferentism; the reason why Leiber (rightly so) called HPL the "Copernicus of literature." And HPL himself acknowledged in letters that he from time to time failed to meet these standards (as Joshi well quotes in the book). That is the light in which we need to understand the criticism--of HPL's own work and everything that followed. And in terms of everything after HPL the point is not so much if a given writer manages to say what HPL had to say (or if they share the same worldview), but if the writer in question manages to create something that reflects his/her's worldview, has something original to say, based on HPL etc. Admittedly, it is clear that Joshi has a hard time really accepting worldviews that differ too much from HPL's (or his own, which is closely linked, at any rate)--his puzzlement of Ligotti's stories (a writer he nevertheless admire very much) is a testament to this. Still, I dare say this basis makes good sense and is executed throughout this survey of a most bizarre literary spawn that is nothing short of admirable.

Highly recommended.