copyright information

copyright information

Saturday, February 21, 2009


Pronounced by the creator of the mythos as Khlûl'-hloo, H.P. LOVECRAFT’s work The Cthulhu Mythos, lingers today as one of the greatest concepts in genre fiction. The combination of unreal horrors and the response of unquestioned reality of the human mind is the subject of his writing. His universe is a terrible place, where there is little hope, and humanity cannot comprehend the world that used to be normal but now is inhabited by terrible things.

Lovecraft was a person unmoved by emotional things. He considered religious views to be abjectly pitiable, that is, he saw the need for religion as coming from a source of weak minds and fear. The result of his views about belief clearly underpins his views on the structure of the universe, the cosmology of this world, and his fictional mythic universe he created. The Gods and their minions are largely above even thinking about humans, for they are considered little more than talking meat. The world in which humans live is alien to those Gods, called the Elder Gods, because of the vast knowledge and view towards the universe that those Gods have. That is, humans live in a universe where beings far more powerful exist, who do not even pay attention to humanity beyond an annoyance, and upon earth we discover them and their schemes at our own risk and detriment.

The world created by Lovecraft was stark, brutal, but also, measured in how much the human mind could describe and endure before collapsing. Some reviewers and critics considered his use of language to be filled with archaic terms, hyperbole, and unconvincing characters. But in saying/writing/asserting so, those critics miss out on the great ability of Lovecraft to create horror. Since the action mostly happens off camera, and the narrator is the reader’s eyes to the event, the language evokes antiquity, the hyperbole reflects the narrator’s inability to comprehend exactly what is happening, and the characters themselves are portrayed far better than the critics suggest because unlike most fiction, the major characters in this are neither heroic, nor victims, but observers. While there are some heroes certainly, the event of the story within such a powerful setting is the reason for the trip, it is by no means due to the characters nor the genre nor language of the writer.

Why does it succeed? I believe that Lovecraft’s horror succeeds because it doesn’t rely upon formulaic patterns, however much it uses templates, archetypes, and devices. It uses stereotypes of human races, and gender, but it does so in the context of the work being considered. Lovecraft did believe in his race’s superiority, and it would be foolish to suggest otherwise, but as part of a early twentieth century piece of literature it is neither out of place nor should it be unexpected. I’d suggest it is regrettable, but I also think it is not something that should remove greatness from the memory and view towards Lovecraft’s work and legacy of intellectual creations.

I recommend the written works of H.P. Lovecraft, the critical works of S.T. JOSHI regarding H.P. Lovecraft, and hope you can get into the quality of the work without being distracted by the baggage of it.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009



LANCELOT from Diminuendo Press (an imprint of Cyberwizard Productions)

“He was the perfect knight, he was the fallen one. He rode to Arthur’s defense, he broke Arthur’s marriage apart. He was noble, kind, and great. He was selfish, foolish, and broken. Who was Lancelot du Lac? Was he a knight of virtue, or a traitor to the crown? He loved a woman, who was queen, but was he a tortured soul in love, or a brazen gigolo who would steal his best friend’s wife? This book is a collection of prose consideration of the man, poetic interpretation of the stories of Lancelot, and artistic renderings of the two very different, yet valid approaches to the story of Lancelot du Lac.”

Two poets, one writer of prose, many fine artists, gathered to create a work that is beautiful, poetic, brutally honest, and romantic about a figure from legend, Sir Lancelot du Lac. It came about at the urgings of a French poet G.F. Evrard that he and I work together. We gathered our friends, some who did the work, others who fell off project, and we produced something unique. With a prose consideration of the history of the character, two poets each writing their views of the character, in poetic form, and color and, black and white illustrations of the poems that round a project into more than poetry, more than art, but something quite different. While the initial work was hard, the real fighter here was the publisher Kelly Christiansen who managed to edit and design a work that featured people from different countries, using three or more languages, and two continents. You might see a sequel to this, if this sells well enough, so if you are interested please plan to buy this book.


Someone I know hates this hates that hates everyone because they do not comply with his sense of normal. What is normal? Is it being white? Is it being straight? Is it being like everybody else? Screw that.

You might disagree with me but I believe God obviously loves diversity because we come in different colors, different sizes, different looks, there is no cookie cutter for human labeled normal. The fact that diversity is the norm suggests that we are made different, unique, beautiful, because that is how it was intended.

And if there were the case that normal is a rule, I'd cut off my arm to be different, because who the hell wants to be the same. If people like being different just to be different, who is harmed by it? I sure am not.

Some point to chaos, and individualism as hurting the core, the masses, the unit of the family and society. Bullshit. We are able to function as a core because individuals constantly test and create new limits.

Is it wrong to be different? Sometimes there is a motive behind being different. Milton said that Satan preferred to rule over hell than serve in heaven, but I suggest it isn't about power this desire to be different and deviation from normal, it is expression of the human spirit. We need those who are different to move us.

Jean Giraud, known as the artist Moebius, one of my heroes, said in an interview that the creative people of society are its true' warriors,' for they create the intellectual debates that help society grow.

In World War II the US government interned all Japanese Americans and their parents. The policy was racist. But it was only after highly creative people such as Ansel Adams, Dorothea Lange and others stepped forward and illustrated the problem did Americans become moved to change.

Never accept normal as all there is. There is far more.


“Each second we live is a new and unique moment of the universe, a moment that will never be again. And what do we teach our children? We teach them that two and two make four, and that Paris is the capital of France. When will we also teach them what they are? We should say to each of them: Do you know what you are? You are a marvel. You are unique. In all the years that have passed, there has never been another child like you. Your legs, your arms, your clever fingers, the way you move. You may become a Shakespeare, a Michelangelo, a Beethoven. You have the capacity for anything. Yes, you are a marvel. And when you grow up, can you then harm another who is, like you, a marvel? You must work, we must all work, to make the world worthy of its children.” Pablo Picasso

Sunday, February 1, 2009


What is the point of writing if nobody reads your work? What is the point of anything if there is no response to it. A great artist can do the most perfect painting known to humanity, but if nobody sees it, or appreciates it, there is something lost.

Therefore, popularity is important even when quality should seem more an absolute, and definable. You might like something, but it doesn’t make it good, but if nobody likes something, the ability to judge its impact will leave it forgotten or ignored. An artist told me to never stop working, that hunger, depression, fatigue are all good, if it means that the work will survive and be born. But we don’t live in a society that accepts, loves, or nutures the arts. We live in a society that commodifies the arts or ignores them based upon its own needs.

Starving artist is a cliché term referring to the fact that artists and creatives in general who commit to their work rarely make money, but to become the best in what you do, you must do that. You must make a choice as a creative, to do it for the work, whatever the reward, or to do it for the reward, and if there is none move on. All of the arts are peopled by talented creatives. But there are also people who succeed because of marketing what they do to the people who will respond... An artist who does not see that money is part of their work will starve.

This is not all to say that a creative should not do one or the other, or both. It is to say, that, for the world to appreciate the work, is to redeem the effort. To buy the work is to redeem the creative artist. Support a living creative, buy their work.