What do you think?
Rate this book
Weird Realism: Lovecraft and Philosophy
As Hölderlin was to Martin Heidegger and Mallarmé to Jacques Derrida, so is H.P. Lovecraft to the Speculative Realist philosophers. Lovecraft was one of the brightest stars of the horror and science fiction magazines, but died in poverty and relative obscurity in the 1930s. In 2005 he was finally elevated from pulp status to the classical literary canon with the release of a Library of America volume dedicated to his work. The impact of Lovecraft on philosophy has been building for more than a decade. Initially championed by shadowy guru Nick Land at Warwick during the 1990s, he was later discovered to be an object of private fascination for all four original members of the twenty-first century Speculative Realist movement. In this book, Graham Harman extracts the basic philosophical concepts underlying Lovecrafts work, yielding a "weird realism" capable of freeing continental philosophy from its current soul-crushing impasse. Abandoning Heideggers pious references to Hölderlin and the Greeks, Harman develops a new philosophical mythology centered in such Lovecraftian figures as Cthulhu, Wilbur Whately, and the rat-like monstrosity Brown Jenkin. The Miskatonic River replaces the Rhine and the Ister, while Hölderlin Caucasus gives way to Lovecrafts Antarctic mountains of madness.
277 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 2012
52 people are currently reading
1294 people want to read
About the author
Graham Harman
62 books214 followersGraham Harman (born May 9, 1968) is a professor at the American University in Cairo, Egypt. He is a contemporary philosopher of metaphysics, who attempts to reverse the linguistic turn of Western philosophy. He terms his ideas object-oriented ontology. A larger grouping of philosophers, Speculative Realism, includes Harman and the philosophers Iain Hamilton Grant, Quentin Meillassoux and Ray Brassier.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
March 22, 2021
It is a virtue of this book that it takes Lovecraft's style seriously, rather than just analyzing its content and dismissing it as tedious pulp. The actual arguments however are quite unsatisfying, amounting to a defense of the rhetoric of oblique evasiveness dressed up as post-correlationist Latourian ontology. To be blunt, Harman is not doing philosophy in this book, and while we could argue about the best prefix to capture this kind of argument (non-, anti- and para-philosophical all come to mind) it might be best to say that this is at best philosophy "by analogy."
Ultimately the problem for Harman's position is that he betrays the anti-correlationism in his argument, sacrificing the speculative absolute to the vague idea of givenness: "experience is made of object-giving acts rather than of specific, determinate contents." Harman leads us to believe that we are escaping correlationism as such, when in reality he merely replaces one correlation with another, Husserlian version. For a more thorough analysis of the pitfalls of Harman's position, it's quite helpful to work through Wolfendale's polemic, Object Oriented Philosophy. In the rest of this review, I will limit myself to a few symptomatic points that show where Harman's argument fails to live up to its stated aims.
Harman's idea of dogmatism is odd: "the problem is that the dogmatist wishes to make the things-in-themselves accessible through discursive statements." This redefinition of Kant's term butchers the source material, making everyone from Plato and Aristotle to Spinoza, Kant and Hegel into dogmatists. To adequately work through this would require more careful attention to the dispute between discursivists (Kant and the later Hegel) and intuitionists (Schelling and the younger Hegel), but the first step would be acknowledging that neither side is dogmatic in a straightforward sense.
The consequence of Harman's imprecise understanding of dogmatism is that his realism entails never having a grasp on reality: "When it comes to grasping reality, illusion and innuendo are the best we can do." By valorizing the suggestiveness of certain representations, Harman is targeting those who attribute a propositional structure to reality itself, but rather than arguing for a post-nominalistic account of representation (a plausible, if imperfect, position defended by Sellarsians) sinks into an anti-realism constantly attacking any clear explanation or description as overly pedagogical and pedantic.
Harman's Husserlian defense of rhetoric ultimately leads him into the dead-end of discursive idealism that he himself criticizes in others: "Irony and paradox cannot be local peculiarities of literature, then, but are an ontological structure permeating the cosmos." Unlike Hegel's idea of the cunning of reason, which describes the seemingly unreasonable structure of reason, Harman conflates contingent features of natural language with the nature of the universe. Perhaps it would have been more honest to call the book Weird Euphemism.
Harman's take on Lovecraft ends up defending the most reactionary aspects of his work, stating outright that "in certain rare cases, reactionary views might improve the power of an imaginative writer" and indulging in fantasies about "primeval national and racial histories" with his "distant forebears roaming the forests of Germania and Bohemia while vandalizing the more cultivated outposts of Caesar." Even if we were satisfied with Harman's pseudo-realism, this way of approaching Lovecraft's patently reactionary stance is difficult not to laugh at.
Following Negarestani's discussion in Cyclonopedia, it is more fruitful to talk about the strategic effects of Lovecraft's paranoia. For Negarestani, "the Lovecraftian outsider is not reducible to the alien, for before everything, it is the act of outsiding imposed by the exteriority of cosmic alienage or the radical outside... For these reasons, the excessive paranoia in Lovecraft’s stories cannot easily be condemned or dismissed." This paranoia, once inverted, can be read as a kind of Hegelian ethics, where the subject only finds its truth in its dismemberment: "Does the ancient fetishist paranoia that Lovecraft vividly diagrams in his stories have only one side, that associated with artless paranoia and racism? Or does it have another edge whose dominant function is that of cutting itself open, reinventing itself as an ultimate polytics for communicating with the Outside — a schizotrategic two-edged blade?" What Negarestani here calls schizotrategy reads Lovecraft against the grain, not as a brilliant mastery of allusion to an unspeakable truth, but as a set of recipes for preparing oneself to be a good meal for the gods.
Ultimately the problem for Harman's position is that he betrays the anti-correlationism in his argument, sacrificing the speculative absolute to the vague idea of givenness: "experience is made of object-giving acts rather than of specific, determinate contents." Harman leads us to believe that we are escaping correlationism as such, when in reality he merely replaces one correlation with another, Husserlian version. For a more thorough analysis of the pitfalls of Harman's position, it's quite helpful to work through Wolfendale's polemic, Object Oriented Philosophy. In the rest of this review, I will limit myself to a few symptomatic points that show where Harman's argument fails to live up to its stated aims.
Harman's idea of dogmatism is odd: "the problem is that the dogmatist wishes to make the things-in-themselves accessible through discursive statements." This redefinition of Kant's term butchers the source material, making everyone from Plato and Aristotle to Spinoza, Kant and Hegel into dogmatists. To adequately work through this would require more careful attention to the dispute between discursivists (Kant and the later Hegel) and intuitionists (Schelling and the younger Hegel), but the first step would be acknowledging that neither side is dogmatic in a straightforward sense.
The consequence of Harman's imprecise understanding of dogmatism is that his realism entails never having a grasp on reality: "When it comes to grasping reality, illusion and innuendo are the best we can do." By valorizing the suggestiveness of certain representations, Harman is targeting those who attribute a propositional structure to reality itself, but rather than arguing for a post-nominalistic account of representation (a plausible, if imperfect, position defended by Sellarsians) sinks into an anti-realism constantly attacking any clear explanation or description as overly pedagogical and pedantic.
Harman's Husserlian defense of rhetoric ultimately leads him into the dead-end of discursive idealism that he himself criticizes in others: "Irony and paradox cannot be local peculiarities of literature, then, but are an ontological structure permeating the cosmos." Unlike Hegel's idea of the cunning of reason, which describes the seemingly unreasonable structure of reason, Harman conflates contingent features of natural language with the nature of the universe. Perhaps it would have been more honest to call the book Weird Euphemism.
Harman's take on Lovecraft ends up defending the most reactionary aspects of his work, stating outright that "in certain rare cases, reactionary views might improve the power of an imaginative writer" and indulging in fantasies about "primeval national and racial histories" with his "distant forebears roaming the forests of Germania and Bohemia while vandalizing the more cultivated outposts of Caesar." Even if we were satisfied with Harman's pseudo-realism, this way of approaching Lovecraft's patently reactionary stance is difficult not to laugh at.
Following Negarestani's discussion in Cyclonopedia, it is more fruitful to talk about the strategic effects of Lovecraft's paranoia. For Negarestani, "the Lovecraftian outsider is not reducible to the alien, for before everything, it is the act of outsiding imposed by the exteriority of cosmic alienage or the radical outside... For these reasons, the excessive paranoia in Lovecraft’s stories cannot easily be condemned or dismissed." This paranoia, once inverted, can be read as a kind of Hegelian ethics, where the subject only finds its truth in its dismemberment: "Does the ancient fetishist paranoia that Lovecraft vividly diagrams in his stories have only one side, that associated with artless paranoia and racism? Or does it have another edge whose dominant function is that of cutting itself open, reinventing itself as an ultimate polytics for communicating with the Outside — a schizotrategic two-edged blade?" What Negarestani here calls schizotrategy reads Lovecraft against the grain, not as a brilliant mastery of allusion to an unspeakable truth, but as a set of recipes for preparing oneself to be a good meal for the gods.
December 1, 2012
Graham Harman's book on object oriented ontology and H. P. Lovecraft is one that lends itself to high concept descriptions. For lit theory buffs, it's Roland Barthes' S/Z, with structuralism switched for OOO and S/Z for an assortment of "The Mountains of Madness" type stuff. It's using OOO to justify a close reading of Lovecraft. It's using Lovecraft to demonstrate what OOO can be applied for. And, as befits any OOO discussion, it can't be summed up by a list of its parts--or qualities. The book is divided into three parts. The first and last parts are oddly similar, as the first is Harman giving a quick run-down on OOO, Lovecraft, and the principles of literature he'll be looking at (Cleanth Brooks and reading without context, Zizek and the trouble with paraphrase,Harman's own formulations from the Quadruple Object, Aristotle on the difference between comedy and tragedy). And the third goes through them again, in a slightly more detailed fashion gleaned from the study. The brunt of the book is the major part, wherein Harman does close readings of 100 passages selected from eight Lovecraft short stories. Graham's point is immediately graspable; OOO, in his version at least, is all about how we can never grasp something in its entirety, how something of its qualities and the object itself always recedes from our comprehension. And Lovecraft's writing, likewise, is predicated around things beyond our ability to apprehend, let alone comprehend, from unnamable colors that corrupt their surroundings to (one of Harman's favorites) a Cthulhu idol that both resembles and does not resemble a blend of octopus, man, and dragon. As someone who prefers close text readings, I can relate to Harman's approach, and I'm grateful to see a thoughtful application of OOO; one of my ongoing objections to new theories is that they seem more interested in saying what's wrong with the old theories than actually showing how the new ones apply, but this book is one big application. It has its downsides, though, and they're the ones you'd expect going through 100 close readings. Namely, things do drag a bit at times, and Harman does repeat himself somewhat. Be prepared for a lot of instances, for example, where Harman demonstrates exactly why a passage couldn't be written in ordinary language by writing the passage in ordinary language. It's part of his argument against paraphrasing in literature, and towards the value of OOO for literature, but it's still rather tedious. Mostly, though, his passion for the subject comes out---it's clear Harman is having fun with this book. I'd recommend it for those interested in how OOO can be applied, or lit folk with a Lovecraft interest. I'm inferring this, but I get the sense that Harman sees this book as a companion piece to The Quadruple Object--it's the application of the methodology that book portrays.
August 6, 2019
Cant go wrong with pop-philosophy, especially about one of your favorite and most accesible writers. The first half on theory including his theories on the phenomenology of Lovecraft, and the resulting phenomenelogical gap created to give a sense of cosmic horror is very interesting. The second half of the book reflects on specific extracts of his writing BUT DOES NOT AGAIN REFER TO THE (ill stop) ontology used in the earlier part of the book, still worth a read for fellow Lovecraftians. :)
January 30, 2021
Mitad ensayo sobre la escuela de pensamiento creada por el autor (la filosofía orientada a objetos), mitad análisis crítico sobre las obras mayores de H.P. Lovecraft, opino que la fuerza de esta obra reside en la primera parte (basada en las biografías del genio de Providence elaboradas por el experto S.T. Joshi y el ínclito Michel Houellebecq), que sintetiza una correspondencia entre la mencionada escuela y los relatos que aprendimos a amar en nuestra juventud.
Más allá de la defensa sobre la calidad literaria de Lovecraft (construida a hombros de los mencionados biógrafos) y la oposición a que se le juzgue como a cualquier autor pulp, el libro analiza cómo sus grandes relatos apuntaban hacia Los sueños de la casa de la bruja, epítome y síntesis espiritual de los Mitos; también hace relación de los puntos fuertes y débiles de su escritura, como el poder de la insinuación abstracta sobre las descripciones literales, y los mecanismos mentales que su obra fuerza en el lector para que intente imaginar cuestiones imposibles (como la analogía del color en El color que cayó del espacio o la descripción original de Cthulhu, diferente a la ofrecida por la cultura pop). También estudia la aplicación de la moral clásica en sus textos, señalando el desgaste sufrido en este sentido en los más modernos, ligeramente maniqueos y que dieron pie a la perspectiva de los Mitos mostrada por August Derleth.
El autor hace aguas en algunos datos como, por ejemplo, la atribución de Tsathoggua a Lovecraft cuando lo inventó Clark Ashton Smith o, en un nivel más básico, su duda sobre el origen socialista del fascismo (a mí también me duele pero la historia es la que es). Sin embargo, remonta en la segunda parte de ensayo filosófico, que critica el concepto de sistema como mecanismo de interrelación de todo lo existente. A mí, que llevo años defendiéndolo, sus ideas me han golpeado en la línea de flotación y se han convertido en food for thought.
En definitiva, una aproximación curiosa a Lovecraft, aunque diría que la correspondencia entre el ensayo filosófico y el análisis crítico de los relatos está, múltiples ocasiones, cogida por los pelos.
Más allá de la defensa sobre la calidad literaria de Lovecraft (construida a hombros de los mencionados biógrafos) y la oposición a que se le juzgue como a cualquier autor pulp, el libro analiza cómo sus grandes relatos apuntaban hacia Los sueños de la casa de la bruja, epítome y síntesis espiritual de los Mitos; también hace relación de los puntos fuertes y débiles de su escritura, como el poder de la insinuación abstracta sobre las descripciones literales, y los mecanismos mentales que su obra fuerza en el lector para que intente imaginar cuestiones imposibles (como la analogía del color en El color que cayó del espacio o la descripción original de Cthulhu, diferente a la ofrecida por la cultura pop). También estudia la aplicación de la moral clásica en sus textos, señalando el desgaste sufrido en este sentido en los más modernos, ligeramente maniqueos y que dieron pie a la perspectiva de los Mitos mostrada por August Derleth.
El autor hace aguas en algunos datos como, por ejemplo, la atribución de Tsathoggua a Lovecraft cuando lo inventó Clark Ashton Smith o, en un nivel más básico, su duda sobre el origen socialista del fascismo (a mí también me duele pero la historia es la que es). Sin embargo, remonta en la segunda parte de ensayo filosófico, que critica el concepto de sistema como mecanismo de interrelación de todo lo existente. A mí, que llevo años defendiéndolo, sus ideas me han golpeado en la línea de flotación y se han convertido en food for thought.
En definitiva, una aproximación curiosa a Lovecraft, aunque diría que la correspondencia entre el ensayo filosófico y el análisis crítico de los relatos está, múltiples ocasiones, cogida por los pelos.
March 13, 2022
When you reveal that you are a reader of HPL you open yourself up for all manner of ridicule / abuse for a variety of reasons, one of which is that he wasn’t actually a very good writer. The Old Gent would probably be the first to agree, being the biggest critic of his own work, and I would have to concur that there are a number of his tales that I probably won’t bother to read again; however, I would argue that his best work is untouchable – an opinion that is normally met by a shake of the head. Thankfully I now have some ammunition…
Harman’s book is by no means a layman’s book – it deals with serious philosophical theory and I have to admit I had to re-read the opening chapters a couple of times to keep up with his thinking. But that work pays off in the main section of the book, where he provides 100 examples of where Lovecraft’s writing is of high literary skill with deeper meaning and concept than previously realised by even his most ardent supporters. I was fascinated by his approach and conclusions and even showed how the skill of HPL’s writing was actually starting to wane towards the end of his career, even though some of those stories are often held up as his very best. Was HPL ready to make a jump into something new that would excite him, or was he actually spent of ideas? We’ll never know. What we do know now, is that’…Lovecraft excels at making the unnameable seem horrible by telling us it is even worse than something we already know without fearing in the least.’ Just read that again…
A note on the publisher ‘Zer0 books’, who state their own mission at the end of the book and are a breath of fresh air in the publishing world:
‘A cretinous anti-intellectualism presides, cheerled by expensively educated hacks in the pay of multinational corporations who reassure their bored readers that there is no need to rouse themselves from their interpassive stupor...Zer0 Books knows that another course of discourse - intellectual without being academic, popular without being populist - is not only possible: it is already flourishing, in the regions beyond the strip-lit malls of the academy.'
Harman’s book is by no means a layman’s book – it deals with serious philosophical theory and I have to admit I had to re-read the opening chapters a couple of times to keep up with his thinking. But that work pays off in the main section of the book, where he provides 100 examples of where Lovecraft’s writing is of high literary skill with deeper meaning and concept than previously realised by even his most ardent supporters. I was fascinated by his approach and conclusions and even showed how the skill of HPL’s writing was actually starting to wane towards the end of his career, even though some of those stories are often held up as his very best. Was HPL ready to make a jump into something new that would excite him, or was he actually spent of ideas? We’ll never know. What we do know now, is that’…Lovecraft excels at making the unnameable seem horrible by telling us it is even worse than something we already know without fearing in the least.’ Just read that again…
A note on the publisher ‘Zer0 books’, who state their own mission at the end of the book and are a breath of fresh air in the publishing world:
‘A cretinous anti-intellectualism presides, cheerled by expensively educated hacks in the pay of multinational corporations who reassure their bored readers that there is no need to rouse themselves from their interpassive stupor...Zer0 Books knows that another course of discourse - intellectual without being academic, popular without being populist - is not only possible: it is already flourishing, in the regions beyond the strip-lit malls of the academy.'
April 18, 2017
a more extended version of part one could be found elsewhere in other harman's books.
part two is simply boring. maybe due to it's rather large volume.
i liked part three although it contained only a small portion of new ideas.
not my favorite Harman's book.
part two is simply boring. maybe due to it's rather large volume.
i liked part three although it contained only a small portion of new ideas.
not my favorite Harman's book.
January 4, 2017
Lovecraft is the Kantian metaphysics author. A seemingly absurd assertion until you read this book. Harman's analysis is occasionally repetitive and weak though.
May 25, 2021
“..Lovecraft somehow makes it work, piling allusion on allusion like a creepy old neighbor constructing a second basement beneath his already mysterious existing one.”
November 28, 2020
Me encantan los planteamientos de Harman acerca del estilo de Lovecraft y su descubrimiento como "muso" de la ontología orientada a objetos, pero hay que decir que el filósofo ha defendido sus tesis de un modo extremadamente tramposo.
Un pilar fundamental del libro es la descripción que Lovecraft hace de una estatua gigante de Cthulhu en "La Llamada De Cthulhu". Harman argumenta que las representaciones gráficas del monstruo fijadas en la cultura popular no hacen justicia a lo expresado en el relato. El filósofo cita directamente a la fuente para demostrarlo:
"If I say that my somewhat extravagant imagination yielded simultaneous pictures of an octopus, a dragon, and a human caricature, I shall not be unfaithful to the spirit of the thing."
Cthulhu es, desde el impreciso punto de vista del narrador, una críptica amalgama de pulpo, humano y dragón. El Cthulu gráfico popular, así como cualquier otra versión visual en la cabeza de los lectores sería una interpretación parcial, una alusión a una alusión lejana a la verdadera esencia de esa "cosa". La argumentación es fascinante más no poder, en pocas líneas expone con contundencia el estilo de Lovecraft y lo enlaza con los postulasdos harmanianos sobre las relaciones objeto real/objeto sensible.
PERO, en el momento que queramos ir más allá de la frase citada, si continuamos leyendo el relato original, justo a continuación nos encontraremos con:
"A pulpy, tentacled head surmounted a grotesque and scaly body with rudimentary wings; but it was the general outline of the whole which made it most shockingly frightful."
O sea, de la pluma de Lovecraft sí salió la cabeza con tentáculos y las alas. Es más: en Internet se puden encontrar bocetos realizados por el propio autor que representan al monstruo de manera clara, muy similar a la imagen canónica pop que ya tenemos.
En fin, que no nos vamos a rasgar las vestiduras por esto. Desde luego yo no le estoy pidiendo rigor científico a unas argumentaciones de "realismo especulativo", pero este tipo de "cachaditas" rompen la magia y rebajan el sentido de la maravilla.
Un pilar fundamental del libro es la descripción que Lovecraft hace de una estatua gigante de Cthulhu en "La Llamada De Cthulhu". Harman argumenta que las representaciones gráficas del monstruo fijadas en la cultura popular no hacen justicia a lo expresado en el relato. El filósofo cita directamente a la fuente para demostrarlo:
"If I say that my somewhat extravagant imagination yielded simultaneous pictures of an octopus, a dragon, and a human caricature, I shall not be unfaithful to the spirit of the thing."
Cthulhu es, desde el impreciso punto de vista del narrador, una críptica amalgama de pulpo, humano y dragón. El Cthulu gráfico popular, así como cualquier otra versión visual en la cabeza de los lectores sería una interpretación parcial, una alusión a una alusión lejana a la verdadera esencia de esa "cosa". La argumentación es fascinante más no poder, en pocas líneas expone con contundencia el estilo de Lovecraft y lo enlaza con los postulasdos harmanianos sobre las relaciones objeto real/objeto sensible.
PERO, en el momento que queramos ir más allá de la frase citada, si continuamos leyendo el relato original, justo a continuación nos encontraremos con:
"A pulpy, tentacled head surmounted a grotesque and scaly body with rudimentary wings; but it was the general outline of the whole which made it most shockingly frightful."
O sea, de la pluma de Lovecraft sí salió la cabeza con tentáculos y las alas. Es más: en Internet se puden encontrar bocetos realizados por el propio autor que representan al monstruo de manera clara, muy similar a la imagen canónica pop que ya tenemos.
En fin, que no nos vamos a rasgar las vestiduras por esto. Desde luego yo no le estoy pidiendo rigor científico a unas argumentaciones de "realismo especulativo", pero este tipo de "cachaditas" rompen la magia y rebajan el sentido de la maravilla.
July 16, 2020
Son cinco estrellas a pesar de que en más de una ocasión yo me haya perdido ligeramente por el camino debido a su contenido filosófico.
EL libro de Harman está dividido en dos partes bastante bien diferenciadas; una en la que se centra en la filosofía que destila la obra de Lovecraft y otra (más interesante para mis propios intereses) en la que desgrana diferentes relatos del autor y analiza párrafos y fragmentos de manera pormenorizada en busca de sus rasgos estilísticos, estéticos y filosóficos.
EL libro de Harman está dividido en dos partes bastante bien diferenciadas; una en la que se centra en la filosofía que destila la obra de Lovecraft y otra (más interesante para mis propios intereses) en la que desgrana diferentes relatos del autor y analiza párrafos y fragmentos de manera pormenorizada en busca de sus rasgos estilísticos, estéticos y filosóficos.
September 9, 2016
I really so super wanted to like this...but it is just too repetitive. :/
December 20, 2024
La parte central y más extensa del libro se dedica a analizar de manera prolija (y un tanto repetitiva en los conceptos que maneja) fragmentos de algunos relatos de [[H. P. Lovecraft]]. Con ello pretende confirmar sus tesis, presentadas en la primera parte. En la tercera y última parte relaciona todo esto con su filosofía (la [[Ontología orientada a objetos]]), que bosqueja brevemente.
Su tesis central, que presenta en la primera parte, es que Lovecraft es un maestro explorando la brecha entre el objeto y su expresión. Por este motivo un parafraseo o un resumen temático destruye por completo la originalidad del autor —el autor dice que lo «arruina»—, algo que ocurre con la literatura en general pero que en Lovecraft es especialmente grave. Lo interesante no es lo que cuenta, sino cómo lo cuenta, o, mejor, como consigue expresar que lo que quiere contar es inefable.
Un buen ejemplo de ello, al que el autor acude repetidas veces a lo largo del ensayo, es la primera descripción de [[Cthulhu]]:
> Si dijese que mi imaginación, hasta cierto punto extravagante, produjo simultánes imágenes de un pulpo, un dragón y una caricatura humana, acaso no fuese infiel al espíritu de la cosa […]. Pero fue el esquema general del conjunto lo que me resultó más chocante y espantoso.
> p.42 (extraído de [[La llamada de Cathulhu]]).
Los elementos de pulpo, dragón y humano no se dan como componentes integrantes de la deidad (no pretende describir, sino «ser fiel al espíritu»), sino más bien como reflejos parciales, rotos (no es humano sino «caricatura humana»), inconciliables (es el esquema lo espantoso). Los esfuerzos lingüísticos tratan a un tiempo de indicar una dirección a la imaginación y de llamar la atención sobre la incapacidad del lenguaje para hacer más que eso: es incapaz de captar el objeto tal y como es. El autor encuentra este tipo de esfuerzos en múltiples pasajes de la obra lovecraftiana, y plantean que muestran de forma explícita, en casos límite, un fenómeno que es omnipresente, cotidiano: el disloque entre lo que un objeto «es» (en su profundidad íntima) y lo que «aprehendemos» de él con nuestros sentidos. (Sobre estas ideas elabora un modelo metafísico más complejo).
El contenido teórico es poco y muy reiterado, pero interesante. [[Graham Harman]] pretende que [[H. P. Lovecraft]] sea para su pensamiento lo que [[Friedrich Hölderlin]] para su admirado [[Martin Heidegger]]
24 12 11
Su tesis central, que presenta en la primera parte, es que Lovecraft es un maestro explorando la brecha entre el objeto y su expresión. Por este motivo un parafraseo o un resumen temático destruye por completo la originalidad del autor —el autor dice que lo «arruina»—, algo que ocurre con la literatura en general pero que en Lovecraft es especialmente grave. Lo interesante no es lo que cuenta, sino cómo lo cuenta, o, mejor, como consigue expresar que lo que quiere contar es inefable.
Un buen ejemplo de ello, al que el autor acude repetidas veces a lo largo del ensayo, es la primera descripción de [[Cthulhu]]:
> Si dijese que mi imaginación, hasta cierto punto extravagante, produjo simultánes imágenes de un pulpo, un dragón y una caricatura humana, acaso no fuese infiel al espíritu de la cosa […]. Pero fue el esquema general del conjunto lo que me resultó más chocante y espantoso.
> p.42 (extraído de [[La llamada de Cathulhu]]).
Los elementos de pulpo, dragón y humano no se dan como componentes integrantes de la deidad (no pretende describir, sino «ser fiel al espíritu»), sino más bien como reflejos parciales, rotos (no es humano sino «caricatura humana»), inconciliables (es el esquema lo espantoso). Los esfuerzos lingüísticos tratan a un tiempo de indicar una dirección a la imaginación y de llamar la atención sobre la incapacidad del lenguaje para hacer más que eso: es incapaz de captar el objeto tal y como es. El autor encuentra este tipo de esfuerzos en múltiples pasajes de la obra lovecraftiana, y plantean que muestran de forma explícita, en casos límite, un fenómeno que es omnipresente, cotidiano: el disloque entre lo que un objeto «es» (en su profundidad íntima) y lo que «aprehendemos» de él con nuestros sentidos. (Sobre estas ideas elabora un modelo metafísico más complejo).
El contenido teórico es poco y muy reiterado, pero interesante. [[Graham Harman]] pretende que [[H. P. Lovecraft]] sea para su pensamiento lo que [[Friedrich Hölderlin]] para su admirado [[Martin Heidegger]]
24 12 11
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 24, 2022
Master
For the master, there is no ‘tit for tat’… when we give something to the Master, we do not expect anything in return…”
Stated more simply, the implicit Master who utters each proverb does so in a lordly manner apparently immune to counterargument. But once we consider the actual verbal content of a proverb, devoid of the Master’s tacit backing, all proverbs sound equally arbitrary and stupid.
Now, it might be assumed that we can settle the issue in each case by giving “reasons” for why one proverb is more accurate than its opposite. Unfortunately, all reasons are doomed to the same fate as the initial proverbs themselves.
Miser-Spendthrift
Consider the following argument between a miser and a spendthrift.
The miser cites the proverb “a penny saved is a penny earned” while the spendthrift counters with “penny wise, pound foolish.” In an effort to resolve their dispute, they both give reasons for their preference. The miser explains patiently that in the long term, cutting needless losses actually accrues more wealth than an increase in annual income; the spendthrift objects that aggressive investment opens up more profit opportunities than does penny-pinching cost savings.
full summary https://unearnedwisdom.com/weird-real...
For the master, there is no ‘tit for tat’… when we give something to the Master, we do not expect anything in return…”
Stated more simply, the implicit Master who utters each proverb does so in a lordly manner apparently immune to counterargument. But once we consider the actual verbal content of a proverb, devoid of the Master’s tacit backing, all proverbs sound equally arbitrary and stupid.
Now, it might be assumed that we can settle the issue in each case by giving “reasons” for why one proverb is more accurate than its opposite. Unfortunately, all reasons are doomed to the same fate as the initial proverbs themselves.
Miser-Spendthrift
Consider the following argument between a miser and a spendthrift.
The miser cites the proverb “a penny saved is a penny earned” while the spendthrift counters with “penny wise, pound foolish.” In an effort to resolve their dispute, they both give reasons for their preference. The miser explains patiently that in the long term, cutting needless losses actually accrues more wealth than an increase in annual income; the spendthrift objects that aggressive investment opens up more profit opportunities than does penny-pinching cost savings.
full summary https://unearnedwisdom.com/weird-real...
January 6, 2018
the fourfold schema he sets up at the beginning is all that really matters. the rest of the book is just...well, fairly forgettable attempt to show how this schema is at work in lovecraft's stories by throwing one quote after another at a wearied reader. many of his uhmmm supposedly subversively "humorous" observations don't really come across that way, at least to me.
reads like a feature length book report by a lovecraft fanboy.
just read the introduction and the conclusion and you won't be missing out on anything substantial.
June 16, 2021
This is the aesthetic theory of Harman´s Object-Oriented-Ontology (OOO). Now, besides all the talking points about Heidegger/Husserl (which takes a huge portion of the book), there were some interesting ideas like the opposition between the pluralism of OOO and the holism of marxism or the formalism of New Criticism.
November 24, 2022
Third philosophical treatise of horror for me. This one specifically deals with Lovecraft’s style of writing and how he elevates himself from the cacophony of pulp fiction writers. Lovecraft’s descriptions of eldritch are scrutinised carefully by the author to accentuate upon the inability of language in conveying human-transcendent, incomprehensible truths.
Read
August 28, 2024Sorpresa encontrarme con un estudio del estilo de Lovecraft. Se hace repetitivo que el 70% del libro siga una estructura de cita y análisis. Hubiera agradecido más disgresión filosófica, que es lo que prometía el título.
September 10, 2025
Una interesante propuesta filosófica bajo el paraguas de la literatura de H.P. Lovecraft. Muy ameno y divertido a pesar de que la propuesta pueda echar para atras en principio. Todo amante de Lovecraft puede ampliar su visión con este libro.
October 27, 2017
Starts out with high energy and a charming sort of "fan boy" enthusiasm, but drifts and meanders repetitively as the author repeats his points and his systematic analysis of little Lovecraft quotes.
August 31, 2013
Object Oriented Ontology (OOO) is fun and made funner still by the fact that Graham Harman seeks to defend Lovecraft's style against the ancient old ones (i.e. other writers), whom lurking in the mists of time whisper for modern readers to critique Lovecraft for his anachronisms, his obtuse (though acting like acute) verbage, and some really long sentences.
Still, perhaps he is right to do so. Harman writes of Lovecraft as a kind of Elder Giant whose visage transcended the constraints of his historicism to prophetically express through his work, not only a critique of the Enlightenment, but especially David Hume. All this to say, that we're not in Kansas anymore and we really never were. Perhaps Lovecraft was one of the first to point out that 'Kansas' may in fact be a humanity leaving uncorrelated the contents we perceive in the cold gulfs of infinity. If there is a fault in Lovecraft's style, of which again Harman is a staunch defender, it is that he could only overstate with the jargon of his time, ideas we have only recently come to culturally understand.
There are some really great moments in this book. I was especially fond of his bestiary of know-it-alls, dunces, and other caricatures whom inadequately describe the differences between an object and it's sensations.
If you like Lovecraft, and if you like philosophy, this is the book for you.
Still, perhaps he is right to do so. Harman writes of Lovecraft as a kind of Elder Giant whose visage transcended the constraints of his historicism to prophetically express through his work, not only a critique of the Enlightenment, but especially David Hume. All this to say, that we're not in Kansas anymore and we really never were. Perhaps Lovecraft was one of the first to point out that 'Kansas' may in fact be a humanity leaving uncorrelated the contents we perceive in the cold gulfs of infinity. If there is a fault in Lovecraft's style, of which again Harman is a staunch defender, it is that he could only overstate with the jargon of his time, ideas we have only recently come to culturally understand.
There are some really great moments in this book. I was especially fond of his bestiary of know-it-alls, dunces, and other caricatures whom inadequately describe the differences between an object and it's sensations.
If you like Lovecraft, and if you like philosophy, this is the book for you.
June 2, 2021
This book has a lot of really interesting ideas worth unpacking, but as a reading experience it's mixed. Harman has great prose & humour but the book was at times a bit of a slog to get through. I felt the middle section (the majority of the book, a dissection of 100 Lovecraft passages) was too long, too repetitive. I would've preferred it be broken up in some way. It's the price Harman pays for being so comprehensive (not as comprehensive as he would have liked, it seems).
This isn't to dissuade anyone from picking it up – it explores Lovecraft's style with much better depth and clarity than probably any other text, and the philosophy is genuinely interesting. I came out of it with a number of techniques to apply to my own works, as well as a new way of looking at things (thanks to the explication of OOO). Although I'm not convinced of some of the metaphysical conclusions, it's nonetheless a very useful & fruitful lens to peer through.
This isn't to dissuade anyone from picking it up – it explores Lovecraft's style with much better depth and clarity than probably any other text, and the philosophy is genuinely interesting. I came out of it with a number of techniques to apply to my own works, as well as a new way of looking at things (thanks to the explication of OOO). Although I'm not convinced of some of the metaphysical conclusions, it's nonetheless a very useful & fruitful lens to peer through.
August 10, 2025
Una obra magistral. Se da el real valor al gran Lovecraft desde la poderosa filosofía de G. Harman.
December 2, 2014
Seems like more of a defense of Lovecraft's writing style than an appraisal of his content. Though given that many are now realizing the important of his contents but few give him points for style, this may very well be a positive thing.
do-not-like
September 2, 2016The discussion of phenomenology is too complex for me to understand, sadly.
April 26, 2017
Interesting. Several short essays on Lovecraft followed by close readings of sentences from several of Lovecraft's stories.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews