Thursday, August 20, 2026

Reconsiderations: H.P. Lovecraft

This being the 136th anniversary of the birth of Howard Phillips Lovecraft, I thought it the perfect opportunity to write another installment in my increasingly irregular Reconsiderations series. I also think it makes sense as a topic, given that, since its inception, Grognardia has focused not just on the history of roleplaying games but also on the authors and literature that inspired those games – and there are few authors who can reasonably be said to have had more of an impact on RPGs than Lovecraft.

Lovecraft is, after all, an Appendix N author and one Gygax notes as being among "the most immediate influences upon AD&D," alongside such other notables as Robert E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, and Jack Vance. This alone demonstrates my point, but, of course, Gygax is not alone in having been an admirer of HPL. Innumerable RPG creators, both past and present, have acknowledged the role Lovecraft and his stories have played in their own creations. There's thus a good reason why, in my first ever post commemorating his birth, I called him "the father of us all."

Up until now, I've been very consistent in saying that, while I have greatly enjoyed Lovecraft's stories since I was about 12 years-old, he was never my favorites of the famed Weird Tales trinity. I would always say that, of those three authors, Clark Ashton Smith was the one I held in the highest esteem. However, over the last year my focus has shifted and I've begun to question my feelings on this matter. 

To be clear, my regard for CAS remains as immense as ever. He truly is a unique author with a unique voice. I will always chesish his stories, particularly his "dying earth" tales of Zothique, which I frequently reread both for their luxurious language and melancholy tone. That said, I have better come to appreciate how much I owe to Lovecraft.

I don't mean this simply in the obvious sense that I have read and enjoyed his stories for more than four decades, though that's certainly part of it. Nor do I mean merely that Lovecraft's influence can be found everywhere in the hobby that has occupied so much of my life. What I mean is something more personal and, until fairly recently, something to which I had never given much thought.

Last summer, at the conclusion of my The Shadow over August series, I described Lovecraft as a kindred spirit and, as the last twelve months have rolled on, I find it an ever more apt description. There are, of course, many things about Lovecraft with which I do not identify, just as there are aspects of his personality and opinions that I find objectionable or simply baffling. I have no interest in pretending otherwise, but neither do I think a man must be admirable in every respect before we can recognize something of ourselves in him. Indeed, it may be precisely because Lovecraft was such an odd and contradictory man that I increasingly find him so compelling.

Lovecraft was a bookish introvert who often seemed more comfortable with the products of imagination than with the demands of everyday life. He was deeply attached to the past, suspicious of much that passed for progress, fascinated by history and antiquity, and given to constructing elaborate imaginary worlds partly for the sheer pleasure of doing so. He maintained friendships across great distances through correspondence and took enormous pleasure in sharing ideas, stories, discoveries, and enthusiasms with an ever-growing circle of like-minded people. He was, to use a deliberately anachronistic term, a nerd. Obviously, I see a lot of myself in him.

And that may explain why my affection for Lovecraft has grown recently. When I was younger, I approached him primarily through his fiction. I judged him, quite reasonably, I think, by his fiction. Judged solely on that basis, I still think I prefer Smith. At his best, CAS possesses a command of language and an imaginative opulence that few writers of fantastic fiction have ever equaled. However, I'm no longer sure that "Which of the Weird Tales trinity wrote the stories I like best?" is the only or even the most interesting way to judge these immensely talented men.

Lovecraft's achievement extends beyond the stories themselves. He created a body of ideas that have proven extraordinarily fertile in the hands of others. More importantly, he wanted them to be fertile. He freely lent elements of his imaginary mythology to friends and correspondents, borrowed from them in return, and delighted in the resulting cross-pollination. What we now call the "Cthulhu Mythos" was never a carefully guarded intellectual property or a meticulously defined fictional setting. Rather, it was something closer to a shared sandbox of the imagination.

Seen from the perspective of roleplaying games, that aspect of Lovecraft seems especially significant. Roleplaying games are themselves exercises in shared imagination. Referees borrow ideas from books, movies, history, mythology, and one another. They then transform them, combine them, and hand them over to players, who transform them yet again through play. The results are rarely tidy and almost never attributable to a single creator. There is something remarkably Lovecraftian – though not in the cosmic horror sense, but in the creative sense – about that process.

This may be one reason his influence on roleplaying games has been so much greater than simply inspiring monsters in Dungeons & Dragons or even providing source material for Call of Cthulhu. Lovecraft and his circle offered a way of creating fantastic worlds that was open, collaborative, allusive, and cumulative. For example, Smith might come up with Tsathoggua and Lovecraft would borrow him. Lovecraft, in turn, creates the Necronomicon and inspires Howard to create the Unaussprechlichen Kulten (with its German title provided by August Derleth). With every borrowing, this shared imaginary world became a little larger and a little more convincing. Anyone who has refereed a long-running roleplaying campaign will recognize this process.

That recognition has caused me to look at Lovecraft differently. For years, I think I regarded him chiefly as one of the great ancestors of the hobby, an enormously influential writer whose fingerprints could be found everywhere. I still regard him that way, of course, but increasingly I see something else as well. Lovecraft is an example of the kind of imaginative life that I myself have tried, in my own much smaller way, to live.

Lovecraft wrote because he loved writing. He read voraciously because he loved learning. He corresponded because he loved exchanging ideas with people who shared his enthusiasms. He invented worlds, histories, books, cults, and strange names because doing so delighted him. He did these things despite disappointments, financial difficulties, personal failures, and the knowledge that the wider world would likely take little notice of most of what he did. Yet, here we are, 136 years after his birth, still talking about him.

Perhaps that's what has changed most in my estimation of Lovecraft. Clark Ashton Smith may remain the pulp fantasy writer whose prose most dazzles me, while Robert E. Howard may remain the one whose best stories possess an energy few writers, even today, can match. Meanwhile, Lovecraft increasingly seems to me the one whose life of the imagination I understand best and have inadvertently emulated the most.

When I called Lovecraft "the father of us all" back in 2008, I was thinking primarily about his influence on RPGs and on the imaginative culture from which it sprang. I still think that's true. Now, though, I would add another meaning to the phrase. Lovecraft belongs to that long lineage of bookish dreamers who found the ordinary world insufficient and responded not by abandoning it but by adding to it, by creating strange countries of the imagination and inviting others to visit them. Some of those visitors then created countries of their own.

I'm one of them – as I suspect are most of the people reading this post.

37 comments:

  1. I couldn't have put it any better myself.

    Now, let's see all of those posts from people who consider HPL "problematic" because they can't help themselves in 3..2..1..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lovecraft is probably my favorite genre author, but calling him "problematic" in scare quotes, as if this were open to interpretation, really undersells the situation. He was a lunatic racist even by the standards of his day, full stop. Unlike some Lovecraft superfans, I'm not going to minimize or excuse this. If he were still alive, I would certainly not support his work, and I don't blame anyone who declines to read him because of his hateful opinions (even though, contrary to popular belief, they are really only intrusive in a handful of his stories; Howard was far more obsessive on the subject of race and pretty much never shut up about it).

      But the way I look at it is: the man is dead. I don't know that he ever did much real world harm with his Neanderthal bigotry and xenophobia, but he is certainly not doing any now. He was a great writer and his work has great power. For me, that more than outweighs the author's failings as a human being, which really mostly harmed and limited himself, not others. The power of his work, and everything it inspired, will live on even if the flawed man is forgotten.

      Delete
    2. What always bugs me about these types is that like... even though it's true he was that racist, he was also softening in his final years and making reconsiderations on some of it, so who knows where he'd have ended up if he had time?

      He's not the one who named that cat, and his FAMILY as a whole was pretty goddamn racist, and he was basically an insular shut in afraid of basically everything outside of his house except going to fetch the post. It's pretty clear to me that the racism was ingrained in him and that it started to melt as soon as he was brave enough to step outside of the mental prison his fears and upbringing put him in. I pity him, tbh.

      Delete
    3. Lovecraft wasn't just a nerd, he was a proto-incel, clinging to reactionary beliefs as a coping mechanism to his stunted development and inability to fit in society. As with incels, it doesn't excuse his reprehensible beliefs but it puts them in perspective. As an individual, its clear the man needed professional help, the likes of which would only be developed decades after his death.

      The woke discourse around HPL is not wrong, just incomplete. The racism in his works sticks out because of how obvious it is, so a surface level progressive reading concetrates on that and ends up missing the forest for the trees.

      I don't know if it was Houellebecq or Joshi that famously pointed out other weird consistent traits in HPL's work, like the absence of commerce and marriage.

      That the driving force in his ouvre is ultimately anxiety (of which his racism is only one factor, even if the most proeminent) is what allowed his ideas to persist and bear fruit in the mind of other artists, of all skin colors, sexual orientation and political afiliations.

      Delete
    4. 1. No, Lovecraft was not an “incel.” (Geez.🙄) His health prohibited him from attending public school for most of his education, barring him from most social activities available to his age group and thus giving little opportunity to master the relevant social skills.

      More importantly, considering his behavior, high intelligence (he was reading adult books on mythology around age 5), mental health history (depression), advanced special interests (and mastery thereof), Lovecraft was likely autistic. (And autistics, because of sensory processing issues, tend to be hypersexual or, like Lovecraft, hyposexual.)

      Being autistic is not the same thing as being an “incel” with personality disorders.

      2.People who say Lovecraft was “a lunatic racist, even by the standards of his day, full stop” are very ignorant of the history of Lovecraft’s time. It was more racist than you think:

      •In 1915, the racist film “The Birth of A Nation” was shown in Woodrow Wilson’s White House, the year it was released. Glorifying the Klan to approving white audiences, the film became a national cultural phenomenon: merchandisers made Ku Klux Klan hats and kitchen aprons, and ushers dressed in white Klan robes for openings. In New York there were Klan-themed balls and, in Chicago that Halloween, thousands of college students dressed in robes for a massive Klan-themed party. In a conservative estimate, the film made $50 million dollars in a time when movie tickets were 10¢. That’s 500 million tickets. That’s about five tickets each for the entire population in America. (92 million in 1910.)

      •In 1924, in the United States, the Ku Klux Klan had over SIX MILLION members in a population of 114 million. That’s just over 5% of the entire population — ONE AMERICAN IN TWENTY was a member of the Klan! And that’s just the Klan. There were other racist organizations then with significant membership as well. And that doesn’t include racists who didn’t join formal organizations.

      •In 1925, the American government, through the mint in Philadelphia, issued fifty cent coins depicting and honoring Confederate generals Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson. Its main purpose was to raise money on behalf of the Stone Mountain Confederate Monumental Association for the Stone Mountain Memorial (which honors Confederate president Jefferson Davis in addition to Lee and Jackson) near Atlanta, Georgia. The coin was designed by sculptor Gutzon Borglum, a member of the KKK.

      •Like the Stone Mountain memorial, the large majority of memorials and monuments honoring the Confederacy or Confederate soldiers were built, not immediately after the Civil War, but between 1900 and 1920, with the peak being in 1911, when Lovecraft was 21 years old, the same year he would meet his future wife, Sonia Greene.

      •1936 saw the founding of the German-American Bund, a pro-Nazi organization, which replaced the Friends of New Germany, another pro-Nazi organization founded in 1933. The Bund was the organization that had a pro-Nazi rally of 10,000 New Yorkers at Madison Square Garden in 1939. The Bund’s membership was roughly 25,000 itself.

      Add to this all the Jim Crow laws, segregation, unequal education for non-whites, “sundown towns,” and the like, and it’s obvious that racism was an ingrained part of America’s society. People want to make Lovecraft out to be Simon LeGree when, in reality, he, like many other Americans, was just a product of his time. It doesn’t mean he wasn’t wrong in his views. And it doesn’t mean that there weren’t people then who opposed racism. (Lovecraft’s friend Samuel Loveman was one of them.)

      What it does mean is that racism wasn’t an outlier in American culture. It was, in fact, interwoven into it. And thus Lovecraft wasn’t anything special or out of the ordinary in his racism. It was the majority view of the time.

      Delete
    5. I think we agree more than disagree. But:

      I'm well aware of how racist the US was back then. The genocide of the natives and enslavement of Africans and the following apartheid system prevalent in the south was literally cited as a model to be followed by Nazi leadership for their pan-germanic vital space project.

      Still, having read through a lot of pulp authors from before, during and after HPL's time, he still stands out as the most racist one.

      REH is notably obsessed about race but in a very different way than HPL. Still weird by today's standards but pales in comparison to stories like Shadow Over Innsmouth or Horror at Red Hook.

      I'm aware of DW Griffith as well, but also having watched a fair share of movies from HPL's active years (1920/30s), his stories still seem more overtly racist than the norm for mainstream entertainment.

      To summarize I think both statements are true: the US was way more racist than people believe, but HPL was also an outlier in this respect when compared to his contemporaries.

      Delete
    6. Nemo,
      Citing "The Shadow Over Innsmouth" as ironclad proof that HPL was more racist than the average American in the 1920s is strange to me because:

      -The Deep Ones are a civilization superior to the WASPs of New England. So in your allegory, who do they represent to this supposedly racist author?

      -In HPL's only happy ending, the protagonist joins with the Deep Ones to "dwell amidst wonder and glory for ever."

      -The hero willingly becomes The Other that he feared and loathed.

      Maybe you should reread it. Or at least read it.

      Delete
    7. This is actually a very interesting interpretation. Maybe I should re-read it indeed.

      But from what I recall the Deep Ones were clearly meant to represent immigrants from distant ports arriving in the US and corrupting the locals by copulating with them.

      I don't recall them being showed in a positive light or as superior in any respect save for their eldritch knowledge.

      I read the ending not as a happy one but as a commentary on the inevitability of the degeneration of a people through race mixing.

      From what I recall of the ending, the protagonist finds out about his "cursed heritage" but he can't do anything to avert the transformation. Him joining the Deep Ones wasn't so much a willing decision rather than the natural consequences of his tainted blood.

      I read most of these stories as a teenager many years ago, prior to being infected by the woke mind virus or whatever, but I am Brazilian i.e. the most racially mixed people on Earth, so even then this is what stood out to me.

      Still, works of art are open systems and many interpretations are possible. So I agree that I could use a re-read, trying to look at it with fresh eyes.

      Delete
    8. Nemo, it sounds as if you are simply regurgitating what you have read of Critical, leftist deconstruction of Lovecraft. To them, a cigar is never simply a cigar. Please read and think for yourself. You’ll find life and written works are more enjoyable that way.

      Delete
    9. This is some "the drapes are simply blue" levels of philistinism but to each their own.

      Delete
  2. Well said on HPL's generosity of creativity; although I can think of many similar shared universes in fiction, those are mostly owned and run by someone -- usually a corporation -- at the top, but HPL seemed to have an almost Creative Commons approach to "his" universe.

    I'm not very familiar with his non-fiction writings at all, but I don't get the feeling that he ever thought of himself owning the Mythos. Rather it seemed like he built it as a playground for his fellow writers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "although I can think of many similar shared universes in fiction"

      HPL came up with it/allowed it to happen. He was WAY ahead of any other such set-ups (other than Wellman and Quinn's copy-catting). Shared universes were foundational to RPGs in the '70s. They exploded in SFF prose during the '80s.

      By far the best account of the evolution of the Cthulhu Mythos is Haefele's A LOOK BEHIND THE DERLETH MYTHOS.

      Delete

  3. He was a very quirky individual, and some things he wrote and said are so daft, and some so good. Worth remembering that we are all complex.

    That was very well put! His generosity and the idea of shared creation is something well worth celebrating, and it was a very good parallel there with gaming. That is really what we do when we game, and we do indeed owe a lot of that to HPL. I had not thought of it that way.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Happy birthday Howard!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Chevski, what struck me most about this post is that your description of Lovecraft's creative life could just as easily be read as a description of Grognardia's role in the early OSR.

    One of the points you're making is that Lovecraft's achievement wasn't simply that he created stories people liked. It was that he created a conversation. The Mythos grew because he treated ideas as invitations rather than possessions. Other writers borrowed, altered, and expanded them, and he delighted in watching the process.

    Looking back, Grognardia often functioned in much the same way. Your blog wasn't merely presenting a finished vision of old-school gaming. It was creating a common language, a shared body of references, and a place where people could discover connections between Appendix N, TSR history, pulp adventure, fantasy literature, wargaming, and hundreds of other interests. The result was that readers carried those ideas away and transformed them into campaigns, settings, blogs, house rules, and eventually whole games.

    That's why your observation about Lovecraft's collaborative imagination resonated with me. It suggests that influence is not primarily a matter of authorship but of cultivation. The most influential people are often those who create fertile ground in which other people's imaginations can take root.

    In that sense, the comparison to Lovecraft may be even closer than you imply. Your contribution isn't simply a set of creations but the establishment of a creative ecology. The OSR blogosphere became larger because you invited participation. Likewise, while many interesting ideas associated with the OSR were not invented on Grognardia, you helped create the environment in which they could flourish.

    Reading this post, I found myself thinking that perhaps "the father of us all" is less a statement about literary influence than about a particular way of engaging with imagination: sharing enthusiasms, making connections, encouraging correspondences, and building communities of creativity. That's a tradition Lovecraft belonged to, and one that Grognardia itself has exemplified over the years.

    ReplyDelete
  6. In an attempt to describe what it is like to read Lovecraft, this came to mind: Lovecraft drowns the reader in swamps of insane peoples' thoughts. It's like his protagonists are largely nuts but are holding on to just enough sanity to put pen to paper, but the madness is about to break through the veneer and carry all before it. I like what RE Howard did with Lovecraftian Horrors; he made them adversaries to stick a sword into. That, I think, is how Lovecraft contributes to D&D, he is mediated through Howard. Lovecraft's bleak Horrors, which to him symbolized despair, in D&D provide antagonists. Howard's warriors don't wilt and die in the face of Horror, like Lovecraft's protagonists do; they man up. That is fun in the game and even encouraging in life. As far as my attitude to Lovecraft, I love his imaginative vision, skilfulness as a writer,and his usefulness for gaming, but I can't tolerate a lot of his personal views, particularly his nihilism and racism. But life is too short to constantly go on a campaign against all the things I don't personally like. You have to choose your battles. Getting up in arms all the time just turns yourself into a problem. It is so much better to celebrate the good in people and take the bad as a cautionary warning. My rambling thoughts as my morning cup of coffee takes effect...

    ReplyDelete
  7. In trying to describe CAS, I once told a friend: "Lovecraft used a lot of obscure words, but CAS knew what they actually meant."

    ReplyDelete
  8. An excellent post, Mal!

    By far the best look at the birth and evolution of the Cthulhu Mythos is John D. Haefele's A LOOK BEHIND THE DERLETH MYTHOS. Despite the protestations of anti-pulpsters like Joshi, there truly was such a thing as the "Cthulhu Mythos" and HPL approved of it and helped it grow.

    Regarding Tsathoggua... HPL read 'Satampra Zeiros' and told REH about Tsathoggua. Howard LOVED the idea and was first to get Thoggie's name in print via "The Children of the Night".

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thank you, Sir. Well written and well said. Ave, H.P. Lovecraft.
    John E. Boyle

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jim Hodges--- I am so tired of the hypocrisy of judging figures from the past by the cultural standards of today. Are those who do this so filled with hubris they fail to comprehend that with time their own attitudes and words will almost certainly likewise be condemned as dated and unacceptable? Lovecraft offered the world his stories; by what right do we, with the arrogance of hindsight, weigh him as a man?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Houellebecq, an ardent fan, not condemns but admires HPL for his complete and utter aristocratic disdain towards the twin capitalist idols that were already in place in the roaring '20s, sex and money. For him, this is not a shortcoming but a virtue. HPL also almost completely ignores the "human" side of his protagonists, their psyche, private life or anything comes into account only when they get splattered on the windshield of an indifferent cosmos.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Considering that D&D has offered halflings, benevolent elves, orcs, warrior dwarves, and so on from the very beginning, and that the Thief was not originally introduced as a class, I have always thought that Tolkien is underrated when it comes to the origins of the game. I understand that Gygax didn't like him, but without realizing it, he had absorbed a large part of Tolkien's fantasy world (possibly through other authors).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have been under the impression that the Tolkien material from Chainmail on was as much marketing as passive absorption. If adding elves and hobbies would sell 10 more copies Gary would do it without any shame.

      He even said as much in Dragon.

      Delete
  13. Thanks, James. I especially like your connecting Lovecraft's shared universe with those of RPGs. Very insightful.

    ReplyDelete
  14. As foretold by prophecy in the first comment, the slurry of ostentatious virtue-signalling in response to this balanced and insightful article was inevitable. Their mind virus will not allow them to take unalloyed joy in anything.

    ReplyDelete
  15. As foretold by my own mind, this balanced and insightful article would inevitably kick off another round of people noting their discomfort with Lovecraft's racial views, and then summarily those same people would be faulted for "virtue signaling" - which actually does not mean some expressing an anti-racist position; it means someone expressing an anti-racist position that they don't actually believe, in ordrer to sound like they are better people than they actually are. Accusing someone of "virtue signaling" is in fact, pretty insulting. And James, you're allowing it. Bein opposed to race hatred is not a "mind virus". As I've noted before, I've been a Lovecraft fan since I was a teen, I have the Arkham hardcovers and several related titles on my shelves, I enjoy his fiction and I re-read favorite stories with some regularity. I am very uncomfortable with his racism, which was way more than casual. A truly balanced view can embrace enjoyment of his fiction and rejection of his personal philosophies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In fact, whether or not one believes what one says has little or nothing to do with whether one is virtue signalling. I suspect that most people who virtue-signal do believe what they say: cultic beliefs are like that. But that is immaterial to their motivation in saying so. The purpose and motivation involved in virtue signalling is to show what a good person one is, and ideally to gain visibility and kudos amongst the like-minded in-group who espouse the same luxury beliefs. And the result is that we get people seeking out every opportunity to spout the same old, tired lines that we are all perfectly aware of already. It's like someone hanging out on train spotter hobbyist forums just to shout any time someone says a coal-powered steam train looks pleasing.

      And shouting "how dare you be weary of our endless hectoring you must be a racist" is pretty bad faith.

      Delete
    2. Counterpoint: when you ignore HPL's racism so you can have your "unalloyed joy" you're not taking his work seriously.

      I get it, there's a culture war going on and you're tired of seeing the mind-virus cult as you call it crop up in your safe space repeating the familiar shtick about HPL's cat or whatever.

      Still, I don't see how one can just ignore this aspect of his work when its so front and center. Its actually kinda ironic how the reactionary position in this matter is to eschew the nasty bits of the worldview presented in his stories in favor of a purely aesthetic pleasure. Sounds like something Hollywood execs would do.



      Delete
    3. Nemo, it makes zero difference if Lovecraft was racial or not. Zero. It has no impact on the quality of his stories and his stories are what we enjoy.

      Delete
    4. Nobody wants to take your precious stories away man, if I haven't made myself clear I enjoy them myself.

      Delete
  16. Lovecraft's dream stories are his very best, in my opinion. It's unfortunate that his work has been flanderized in popular culture to the point where a picture of a purple tentacle is supposed to sum up his work. Lovecraft's strength was that he knew the right words to use to evoke the mood. That's why every adaptation so much much misses the point.

    C.S. Lewis explained the concept of "sehnsucht", which he described as “the inconsolable longing in the heart for we know not what...That unnameable something, desire for which pierces us like a rapier at the smell of bonfire, the sound of wild ducks flying overhead, the title of The Well at the World’s End, the opening lines of Kubla Khan, the morning cobwebs in late summer, or the noise of falling waves.”

    This feeling is exactly the theme and substance of The Quest of Iranon, The Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath, and The White Ship. Not only are the protags of these stories motivated by sehnsucht, Lovecraft successfully instills that same complex emotion in the reader.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The Mountain Goat's "Lovecraft In Brooklyn" was good listening while reading this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuU1Kh-7Eos

    ReplyDelete