Classics Without All the Class discussion

What are your thoughts on Lovecraft's description of the architecture and creatures in the Mountains of Madness? Did you find it excessive, repetitive? Or did you see it as a plausible documentation of what was being observed by scientists? Were there any places where more description would have been helpful?

When Lovecraft was describing the ancient city and the murals for pages and pages I wanted to smack him and say "yeah, yeah, get on with it already!" I think he did that to try to heighten the suspense but IMHO he failed because it was so repetitive, even down to certain words he used over and over again. Cyclopian and decadent come immediately to mind. But I have to say, there is something in the lofty, formal, educated way he writes that appeals to me. His use of language, some of his colorful, almost archaic vocabulary choices is probably just part of the way he actually spoke, but also gives the feel that the narrator was an educated, sophisticated person, not someone hysterical jumping at shadows and thinking he sees monsters. In other words it helped the account of the exbidition seem written by a real scientist and thus more real.

Dyer proclaimed some things he saw as indescribable, no way to put into words. But then he went on to describe them in detail....several times. (o: This didnt bother me though because it seemed like diaries entries which contained scientific notes as well as exclamations of fear and wonder. He may have felt incapable of verbalizing his experience initially only to find the words once he thought it through.

I also am enjoying reading this on my Kindle so I can pull up images of places that were referred to (such a Machu Picchu, Garden of Gods, Snake Tomb) in order to help the reader visualize the type of landscape Dyer saw.

I think Lovecraft is very accomplished at descriptive writing. He really brings the setting, as seen through the protagonist's eyes, to life, and several of his descriptions left me breathless and awestruck, which I find commendable.

That said, sometimes it's a bit too much. On the one hand I really do respect the sheer amount of research he must have put into this novella (especially as it gives credibility to the protag. being a geologist/the scientific nature of the expedition), but on the other hand, I feel that he perhaps included a bit too much detail about things that, frankly, were neither important to the advancement of the plot nor particularly interesting.

I feel very conflicted about this, namely because I do like the general authenticity of the story that's in large part due to the scientific jargon/descriptions. I just find it frustratingly dry. More than once I had to force myself not to skim over passages that were littered by descriptions that were mind-numbing and more often than not repetitive.

I think I would have abandoned the novella a long time ago if I weren't so charmed by the language, the setting, the scientific perspective, and the slow and subtle build-up of suspense. The occasional hackneyed and monotonous description can be forgiven on account of all that, IMHO.

I didn't mind his repetition of description, it was when he kept alluding to certain things, some of which were fictional, and I was just thinking, yeah I got it. He did repeat words often and I haven't read any other Lovecraft so I don't know if this is typical, but it really felt like a scientist wrote it in those parts. In science, words mean very specific things, even common words become more specific in jargon, so it forced me into that mode more where the carvings were decadent that's just the technical word to use for them. Or it's just Lovecraft not wanting to break open a thesaurus!

Ellie wrote: "... it really felt like a scientist wrote it in those parts. In science, words mean very specific things, even common words become more specific in jargon, so it forced me into that mode more where the carvings were decadent that's just the technical word to use for them."

Exactly! My scientific avenue into the book wasn't biology, but archaeology, with smatterings of geology, and I loved the precision the narrator brought to his forced observations of the "new civilization." Every time he lapsed from empirical notation of his observations, and used vocabulary like "evil," "horror," "malevolent," I couldn't help feeling like his slippage was like a slap in his face - and mine.

I am not a horror buff, and the only horror movie I really enjoy is Aliens, but I really cottoned on to this book. I thought Lovecraft's creation of an original civilization was interesting, since our sun is actually a 3rd-generation star ... I've wondered if human civilization wasn't "deposited" on earth, in ways not too different than Lovecraft's narrator described. I couldn't help but think, "How clever! To align an inherited re-population of a new planet with those botanical species we discover in the earliest fossil record, instead of to anthropomorphize it, as I've done - kind of ingenious!"

The fact that he imagined an original species - however much it degraded in later generations - and gave it characteristics of a species that combined reptilian biology with fern-like botany into a single species ... maybe not possible, but very interesting to watch what Lovecraft came up with. And interesting to observe (and inwardly critique) the psychology of a mind confronting facts that he cannot reconcile with his own paradigms.

Jasper wrote: "The fact that he imagined an original species - however much it degraded in later generations - and gave it characteristics of a species that combined reptilian biology with fern-like botany into a single species ... maybe not possible, but very interesting to watch what Lovecraft came up with. And interesting to observe (and inwardly critique) the psychology of a mind confronting facts that he cannot reconcile with his own paradigms."

I also was fascinated this! With the internet my curiosity overwhelmed me and I looked up artist renderings of the Elder Ones. He describes them very exactly but due to their nature of being completely other, completely different from any life form on earth (though with a human-like society), it's so hard to picture them, and from the wide variety of interpretations, others found it equally fascinating. In everything else the aliens always have something human or at least animal at their core biology, something recognizable, but he creates a species that is completely other.

Ellie wrote: "In everything else the aliens always have something human or at least animal at their core biology, something recognizable, but he creates a species that is completely other."

That was so interesting to me! (view spoiler)[And the symbiosis between the species of the Elder Ones, and their created Shaggoths (or cultivated, or re-cultured) - it really lay the groundwork for the philosophical horror of a creation becoming sentient enough (at the hands of their creators) to turn on and later feed upon the intelligent beings that gave them life and awareness. (hide spoiler)] I couldn't tell if Lovecraft was masterful in creating the tale, or if he just got lucky (this is my first Lovecraft, as well).

His descriptive style is what drew me into the story at first, but after a while I found his descriptions to be a bit heavy-handed on the scientific jargon. Several times I had to resist the urge to Google some term he used in hopes that context clues would get me through. On the other hand, must keep in mind that the narrator is a geologist and would of course write pages of rock descriptions. For that, I can applaud Lovecraft for his dedication to the character, but the descriptive style is not for me.

The descriptions were great. I had to google so I could see it visually, and was pretty much what I expected. Lovecraft obviously spent a lot of time on it, and he did well.

Colleen wrote: "The descriptions were great. I had to google so I could see it visually, and was pretty much what I expected. Lovecraft obviously spent a lot of time on it, and he did well."

I was googling too. I loved his descriptions but I wanted to see these hideous monstrosities he kept talking about.

Anyone constantly think of Prometheus while reading this? Love that movie and I can see where a lot of inspiration for it came from now.

I listened to it on audio, so the vast overusage of "decadent" was very audibly obnoxious after awhile, but I agree, he was using it as a term of art and science jargon, rather than not being able to think of a suitable synonym. Mostly I found the descriptions interesting, except in some passages where he droned on a bit long (especially for such a short story).

I did like the way he built up the suspense and horror of what they found though, and kept alluding to things long before he actually described them.