H. P. Lovecraft, “The Whisperer in Darkness” and “At the Mountains of Madness”: The Case for Unlocking the Necronomicon

Continuing my study of the collected stories of H. P. Lovecraft, I read two long stories, both produced around 1930: “The Whisperer in Darkness” and “At the Mountains of Madness.” In that last two posts, I critiqued Lovecraft from the Promethean perspective of the Enlightenment.  It seems to me that Lovecraft’s suspicions about science, his tendency to punish people for opening forbidden books or exploring forbidden knowledge, and the often-used plot device where a character recommends that everything is done to avoid revising a strange phenomenon (rather than exploring it in more detail) all are informed by his deep political conservatism, his xenophobia, and his fear of modernity. What I have not confessed is that I very much enjoyed reading his stories, even as I find their moral or political perspective troubling.  I certainly do not think all work needs to necessarily assume a projectoral life. But at the same time, I think Lovecraft’s writings come from an all too common and very unfortunate perspective on the world, based on fear (the most primal emotion according to Lovecraft) and cowardice.  Most of his stories are based on investigation of an unknown phenomenon, but almost always end with an attempt to seal the truth because the truth simply cannot be understood by human senses or experiences (describable). Like the Necronomicon, locked behind the desk at the Miskatonic University Library, the indifferent alien forces that surround us are best unknown. In short, my perspective was that the “Unknowable Horror” is a very weak and passive position to take through life and generally not suitable to free and creative people.  However, I am not realizing that this not an entirely fair way to read Lovecraft. We should start, not from a commitment to the Enlightenment project, but instead by starting with the reality of the unknowable.

Lovecraft is embracing a not uncommon modernist critique of the Enlightenment’s emphasis on reason, progress, and equality. Any rightwing politics he embraced derived from this, but it is not a unique perspective. This skepticism of the Enlightenment is deep in the DNA of modernist thought, science, literature, and art.  We can assume the worst and imagine that the senses fail us, that human progress is not possible or at least not very likely, that science can never explain the world enough to provide any security, and that the many enemies we face in life are ultimately unknowable. We can also just assume, with Lovecraft, that there are forces out there that look upon us with the indifference that we look at ants.  This does not actually take long to justify. A lab rat in a maze, certainly cannot conceive of the reasons he is being tormented, or even the ultimate purpose of the insane experiments we inflict on him.  And it takes a profound human arrogance to assume that we share any emotions, perspectives, or understanding with the rat.  This is not a random example because the plot of At the Mountains of Madness is based on aliens living in Antarctica, experimenting on the human explorers who discover their presence. If we can accept that the rat faced unknowable things, it is also arrogant to assume we would never face it ourselves.  So my question is: assuming that human reason has limits, what is the proper path of life?

Another way of stating this would be to ponder if the existence of the unknowable would suggest an abandonment of our inquisition of the world. Should we be like the narrator of At the Mountains of Madness and vow never to approach that unknowable again, better to lock it up with the Necronomicon?  I could point out that almost all of Lovecraft’s stories have at their center an investigator (often as narrator). In “The Whisperer in the Darkness” it is an investigator searching out the reality behind rumors of inhuman and unknown creatures in Vermont. In At the Mountains of Madness, the investigators are a team studying fossils in the Antarctic. Even if our conclusion of the tales we read is that the people would be better off not investigating the horrors, Lovecraft still cannot help but celebrate the investigator. They also always tend to move themsleves closer and closer to the horror before deciding that caution is essential.  Their curiosity about the unknown (reflected of course in Lovecraft himself in creating his myths) is quite admirable and perhaps a lesson about our proper orientation to any limitations we face as somewhat evolved apes.  Is Lovecraft telling us to push to the very limit of understanding?

mountains

Our real danger is not our tendency to reach this limit of knowledge. Instead, we are mostly threatened by the cowardice or laziness coming in too soon.  Too often we accept the reality of unknowable or indescribable threats, evils, or dangers (think “terrorism” or “capitalism” or “the government”) and often fail to even pursue an analysis.  Like Lovecraft’s characters, perhaps we should err on the side of knowability and touch that limit even at the risk of facing the “unknowable horrors.”  And like Wilbur Whately did when he demanded that Miskatonic University allow him to read the Necronomicon, we should demand that at the very least our rulers open their books to our gaze.

Advertisements

One response to “H. P. Lovecraft, “The Whisperer in Darkness” and “At the Mountains of Madness”: The Case for Unlocking the Necronomicon

  1. Like Philip K.Dick,he mistrusted the orthodox faith of a benign creator.Unlike him,he didn’t meet the challenge of revealing the absolute truth hidden from ordinary view.Often,this brings no enlightenment,but rather an awful angst as they find themselves at the mercy of manipulative entities of biblical semblance.The truth must be faced and accepted with this angst,rather than fighting against it,while fighting to remain sane and human.I suppose Lovecraft knew this,and spared his characters the anguish that existential knowledge would bring.

    Not that Dick’s awesome stuff follows an exact pattern of terminal ferocity.Sometimes the deception lies in dull political scams,such as in “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep”,where an empirical belief leads to blissful revelation,or in “Martian Time-Slip”,where the seemingly divine Manfred emerges transformed in a bizarre state through his power over the inner workings of the universe,causing dislocation that is not however entirely malign to the welfare of those confronted with the vision.In DADOES,it brings a transformation of world and being,while MTS reveals the sanguine truth of a decaying universe as seen through the vision of a saintly deviant who thankfully escapes his “fate”.The emergence of foreign elements into their “reality” is not entirely bleak,and courage,faith an empathy will bring salvation,but it seems Lovecraft lacked this visionary forethought.

    Olaf Stapleton,who wrote far outside Lovecraft’s perimeters during the same period,had already written of an uncaring God in “Star Maker” before Dick had taken pen to paper.This discovery though seems to bring about no transformation of character or world,merely one of indifference and acceptance of “our” dreary existence.Is this any better than the transcendent angst and veiled knowledge of Dick and Lovecraft?

    I can only say then,that Lovecraft sought to protect the frail people of his literary universe by limiting them to fragmentary truths.Like Dick’s,it was a forbidding universe where ultimate knowledge will bring nightmarish vistas that are perhaps best left untouched.Lovecraft though,perhaps possessed a moral cowardice,whereas Dick had an unflinching maverick power that didn’t stop at borders.Not that Lovecraft’s place isn’t filled with individuals who haven’t experienced and run away from the darkness of terrible creator gods,but I suppose there’s an indifference to facing the ultimate terrors that will bring transformation and knowledge,however uncomfortable the end result.

    This isn’t the last word though.I don’t know;I just throw in some positive ideas for discussion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s