Iniciar sesión

Robert McNair Price

Robert M. Price es teólogo, especialista en el Nuevo Testamento. Entre sus libros se incluyen Beyond Born Again, Deconstructing Jesus, The Crisis of Biblical Authority, Jesus Christ Superstar: A Redactional Study of a Modern Gospel, The Da Vinci Controversy, The Amazing Colossal Apostle...

Por otro lado, Robert M. Price es un enamorado de la obra de Lovecraft y un entregado divulgador de los Mitos de Cthulhu.

Ésta es su web:

Horrors Worse than Hell2022Escritor
Did Lovecraft Write Lovecraft Pastiches?2018Escritor
The Seven Thunders2015Escritor
The Occupant of the Tent?2015Escritor
Fish Schticks2015Escritor
Cloaked in Darkness?2015Escritor
The Book of Iod2014Escritor
The Necronomicon: Hexes and Hoaxes2008Escritor
Introduction: Dunwich Homecoming (Tales Out of Dunwich)2005Escritor
Introduction (to "The Tales of Inspector Legrasse")2005Escritor
Acute Spiritual Fear2003Escritor
The Supplication of Cxaxukluth2002Escritor
The Ebony Book?2002Escritor
About "The Eibonic Rituals"?2002Escritor
About "Psalms of the Silent"?2002Escritor
About "Payrus of the Dark Wisdom" by Lin Carter?2002Escritor
Ghoul's Tale: A Narrative from the Necronomicon Transcribed from the Dee Edition2001Escritor
The Epistles of Eibon (junto a Laurence J. Cornford)?2001Escritor
Black Eons (junto a Robert E. Howard)2001Escritor
Introduction: Lovecraft's Cosmic History1999Escritor
The Incubus of Atlantis (The History of Klarkash-Ton the Hierophant)?1998Escritor
Annotations for the Book of Night?1998Escritor
The Theology of Nyarlathotep1997Escritor
The Pseudo-Akeley: The Tale of Two Brothers?1997Escritor
Página 1/3 »

Página 3/3
04-12-2017 15:45 (editado 04-12-2017 15:57)

2946 mensajes

Dejo esto de Price aquí que me parece interesante de su intro a "Tales of the Lovecraft Mythos".

"Much controversy continues to surround the vexed question of whether and to what extent Lovecraft meant the reader to understand his eldritch entities as unknown deities (HPL’s explicit acknowledgment of their ultimate origin in Dunsany’s The Gods of Pegana would suggest this) or simply as aliens from outer space taken for gods (a la Erich von Daniken, Chariots of the Gods), as references in many tales imply. It can be argued both ways, and the issue is further complicated if, as I think, Lovecraft intended some of the beings to be superhuman aliens and others as real gods worshipped by these aliens.

But the really crucial question in post-Derlethian interpretation of the Mythos is whether it is harmonious with Lovecraft’s conception of things to envision a cosmic war waged between different superhuman races. Derleth attributed to Lovecraft his own notion of a primordial contest between the benevolent Elder Gods and the Satan-like Old Ones. Derleth, in his introduction to Tales of the Cthulhu Mythos and elsewhere, made explicit this parallel between Christian and Cthulhuvian myths.

Interpreters from Richard L. Tierney and Dirk W. Mosig on have hotly repudiated this whole schema, derisively dubbing it “the Derleth Mythos.” They saw in Derleth’s framework, especially in the Christian parallel, the imposition of a Good versus Evil schema foreign to Lovecraft’s original, morally neutral conception. While such an understanding would indeed represent the grossest rending of the Lovecraftian fabric, I am not convinced that critics have correctly understood Derleth at this point.

In a book that is an explicit homage to Derleth’s seminal Mythos anthology it is perhaps not amiss to take a moment to defend him. Though Derleth did sometimes in his own Lovecraft pastiches say he was pitting good entities against evil ones (he makes this explicit in, e.g., “The Return of Hastur”), it is not apparent that this turns out to make much difference. Rather we simply have protagonists like Seneca Lapham and Laban Shrewsbury defending human interests against inhuman/superhuman ones, just as we had in Lovecraft, where after all we do occasionally see Henry Armitage and Martinus Bicknell Willet trying (and even succeeding!) to prevent the planet from being cleared of human beings.

And in Lovecraft’s “The Dunwich Horror” Armitage does not hesitate, as Mosig would have, to call the ancestral faith of the Whate-leys a “wicked cult.” In “The Thing on the Doorstep,” delvers into forbidden lore (“It’s the devil’s business.”) are called “evil souls.” Both authors have their characters call the Old Ones “evil” from an admittedly anthropocentric perspective, not an objective, “cosmicist” one.

Too much has been made by Derleth’s critics of the use he made of the Elder Gods/Old Ones conflict. A close look at Derleth’s Lovecraftian fiction will reveal that Derleth himself saw both groups simply as powerful races of space aliens, as ought to be obvious by his locating the Elder Gods in the vicinity of Betelgeuse (their name for which, Glyu-Vho, Lovecraft himself supplied for Derleth!). And had not HPL made considerable use of the theme of warring alien races, with human earth as their battleground?

Indeed many of Derleth’s most strident critics deem At the Mountains of Madness and “The Shadow out of Time” the greatest works of Lovecraft, and it is in these novellas that such conflicts between “Elder Ones,” “space-devils,” and “Cthulhu-spawn” abound!

Another modification for which Derleth’s critics cannot forgive him is his apportioning of the Lovecraftian entities among the hackneyed categories of the four elements, so that Cthulhu becomes a water-elemental, Nyarlathotep an earth-elemental, etc. Actually this was not Derleth’s idea. He accepted it from Francis T. Laney, a fan whose glossary of the Lovecraft Mythology Derleth read, liked, and reprinted. In fact we owe Derleth’s fire-elemental Cthugha to Laney: Derleth created him (in a singularly uninspired moment) to plug the gap left gaping by Lovecraft who had not obliged Laney by creating any fire-elementals… or, come to think of it, any air-elementals, either! Hence the birth of Lloigor and Zhar, and the pressing into service of Blackwood’s Wendigo under the Derlethian alias Ithaqua, and of Bierce’s and Chambers’s Hastur.

Mosig had great fun pointing out how ill-fitting the whole schema was. How could Cthulhu be a water-elemental when, on Derleth’s own reading, he was imprisoned under water! But in this case Derleth is more nearly right than Mosig, since after all Cthulhu is described as having the head of an octopus and to be served by the ichthyic Deep Ones! Cthulhu’s imprisonment is not constituted by the simple fact that he is under water, but by the fact that he is sealed in the barnacled tower of R’lyeh, as Lovecraft’s own Necronomicon quote (in “The Dunwich Horror”) says!

Even here I am willing to give Derleth (and Laney) the benefit of the doubt. Granted, the whole elemental business was handled pretty inanely, but the basic notion appears not to be so utterly foreign to Lovecraft at all. In Lovecraft’s stories it is clear that the monstrous elder races do symbolize certain geographic areas or particular landscapes which Lovecraft found potently evocative. We are told that in his night-time walks he would pause before a shadowed arch or a decrepit house and allow his imagination to people its recesses with unknown ghouls and ghosts. When he created the crinoid Old Ones in the ice-fields of Antarctica, or the crustacean Outer Ones of the domed Vermont hills, isn’t it obvious that these entities were in fact intended as incarnations of the sheer strangeness of nature in these places? In a passage of foreshadowing in “The Whisperer in Darkness” Lovecraft actually calls the Outer Ones “elemental spirits.”

Thus in an important sense, the Old Ones are indeed elementals. Can anyone deny that Lovecraft gave Cthulhu the pronounced traits of a mollusk precisely because of his loathing for wriggling sea-life? Thus Cthulhu turns out to be precisely a sea-elemental, Mosig notwithstanding. he is under water, but by the fact that he is sealed in the barnacled tower of R’lyeh, as Lovecraft’s own Necronomicon quote (in “The Dunwich Horror”) says!

Now if Mosig wanted to fault Derleth for writing poor stories in which what ought to remain implicit became explicit, that is another matter. But in fact it is quite evident that Mosig and his disciples were concerned to prosecute what seemed to them almost a religious heresy. They sought, in my view, to defend a system abstracted from Lovecraft, and thus more Lovecraftian than Lovecraft. Mosig had damned Derleth for, among other sins, stripping away the veil that hung before Lovecraft’s mythic lore and creating in its place a dry and over-explicit systematic theology. True, in his poorer work, much of it tossed off casually as filler for Weird Tales, Derleth did indeed commit this sin (though here he was led astray by Francis Laney, and he never sinned so grievously in this respect as Lin Carter did later).

But the pendulum swung fully to the other extreme as Mosig proceeded to substitute his own abstract system for Derleth’s, setting forth his own systematic philosophy of Lovecraft’s fiction and criticizing not only Derleth (explicitly) but even Lovecraft (implicitly) for failing to stick to it. It is amusing to note how Mosig’s successors have had to resort to dismissing Lovecraft’s own “The Dunwich Horror” as irony (“He can’t have meant it!—or my theory’s shot to hell!”) or “The Whisperer in Darkness” as self-parody. I cannot help but recall how in his seminars the great Swiss theologian Karl Barth would sometimes respond to a student question by first turning to one particularly astute graduate student and asking, “Mr. So-and-So, would you please give us the Barthian reply?… Thank you, and now for what I myself think.”

I do not believe we can completely dismiss Derleth’s interpretations of Lovecraft, and this for two reasons. Just as an earlier generation of critics sought to strip away Derleth’s reinterpretations so that Lovecraft’s bold conceptions might clearly be seen, I believe the time has come to recognize that these critics themselves unwittingly caricatured both Derleth and Lovecraft.

Derleth was closer to Lovecraft, and Lovecraft veered closer to what they deem Derleth’s abuses, than Mosigian critics can admit.

For our purposes this entails the recognition that for the Lovecraft Mythos to continue to evolve and develop by the addition not only of new gods and new grimoires, but also by the stretching and adapting of Lovecraft’s original concepts is by no means alien to Lovecraft’s intentions. How could it be, when Lovecraft had explicitly blessed such additions as his letters to Kuttner, Derleth, and others reveal? Again a critic may reply, and some have, that Lovecraft was simply being polite. In other words, again, he was just kidding. And how do we know when he was kidding? When he failed to conform to the abstraction we have of his thought, when he didn’t say what he should have said".

¿Qué sus parece? Me parece interesante compartirlo con los demás eruditos casposos de ésta nuestra web.

Sería un tema de podcast, ahí lo dejo.Un saludo.

04-12-2017 16:02

3000 mensajes
↕ 17 minutos ↕

Menudo tocho en inglés, trapa... tú si que eres *#$%$·*craftiano...

Para empezar, en desacuerdo con un par de los pilares base:

Tal como se dijo:

Interpreters from Richard L. Tierney and Dirk W. Mosig on have hotly repudiated this whole schema, derisively dubbing it “the Derleth Mythos.” They saw in Derleth’s framework, especially in the Christian parallel, the imposition of a Good versus Evil schema foreign to Lovecraft’s original, morally neutral conception.

Ni creo que la concepción moral de Lovecraft (si me apuras, la de nadie) fuera neutral, ni creo que la posición de Derleth se ajustara a la concepción cristiana (que no es la de un Dios bueno luchando contra un Demonio malvado igualmente poderoso, al menos en sus vertientes mayoritarias; desconozco todos los intríngulis de la infinidad de sectas protestantes).

Aquí desde luego hay trabajo para Eruditos Casposos empleándose a fondo.

Entropía Bibliotecario
04-12-2017 16:11

16564 mensajes
Twitter Web
↕ 9 minutos ↕

Gran aporte, Trapa, incluyendo los párrafos repetidos para comprobar si estábamos prestando atención.

En cualquier caso por encima de todas estas disquisiciones sigue habiendo un hecho indudable, y es que Derleth escribía fatal. Ya que sus interpretaciones sean mejores o peores me parece sencudario frente a que sus relatos son un peñazo.



04-12-2017 16:17

3000 mensajes
↕ 5 minutos ↕

No creo que el fondo sea secundario con respecto a la forma, pero como tampoco creo lo contrario, me imagino que...

04-12-2017 16:22

2946 mensajes
↕ 5 minutos ↕

Si,ya lo he editado..

De hecho Price también lo dice, que Derleth era un churro escribiendo.Lo que me parece más interesante son las distintas corrientes interpretativas de los Mitos y sus diferentes cosmovisiones,que entre los críticos desatan pasiones pero que me parece que en los lectores ,como yo por lo menos, no desatan grandes controversias.Como lectores nunca podremos entender las motivaciones últimas de las fuerzas y seres que dominan el cosmos, aunque cada uno arrime el ascua a su sardina,tanto al interpretar como al escribir.Me gusta verlo así, incluso aunque Lovecraft o quien sea nos diga que hacen x por tal motivo o que una proa derrota a Chuntu.Eso es lo que él interpreta, o lo que quiere creer.Todos sabemos que no es así.

Entropía Bibliotecario
04-12-2017 16:23 (editado 04-12-2017 16:34)

16564 mensajes
Twitter Web
↕ 41 segundos ↕
Tal como dijo AZ:

No creo que el fondo sea secundario con respecto a la forma

Es ya meternos en otra discusión, pero para mí está clarísimo que en literatura la forma está supeditada al contenido y no al revés. De todos modos es cierto que lo que plantea Trapa/M.Price va más allá de la calidad de Derleth (aunque creo que inevitablemente eso influye) y se adentra en el legado interpretativo que dejó (e impuso). Además, se parte de que la cosmología de Lovecraft, fuese la que fuese, era coherente y seguramente ni eso sea cierto, y según el día considerara dioses o bichos tochos a los mismos "entes".

También os digo que hemos quemado a gente por menos, ojito.



04-12-2017 17:12

7972 mensajes
↕ 48 minutos ↕

Yo creo que, al menos en esa foto, Robert M. Price se parece a Donald Sutherland.

--- Lo cual, evidentemente, aporta mucho al debate...

04-12-2017 17:12

4438 mensajes
Twitter Web
↕ 2 segundos ↕

El tema es que si queremos explicar el porqué de las acciones de esos seres, tendríamos que salir de nuestros encorsetados cerebros y sistemas humanos. Extraterrestres, dioses, el Bien y el Mal, son palabras con sentidos humanos.

Si Lovecraft mismo no tenía claro la cosmogonía de su universo ni el panteón de sus seres, nosotros solo podemos aceptar lo que diga en sus relatos, sin intentar encajarlos en una misma mitología todas las historias juntas. Y ya no hablemos de lo creado por sus seguidores.

Lovecraft abrió el camino, ya por eso merece toda la admiración de los lectores y escritores. De ahí a que tenga coherencia hay un abismo.

Lo de Derleth es pura pasión por la obra y la persona de Lovecraft. Tal vez esté confundido, pero cuando una obra es editada y pasa por la imaginación del lector, deja de ser propiedad del autor...Osea, que Derleth tenía todo el derecho de hacer su propia interpretación, a pesar de que sea maniqueísta y de baja calidad literaria.

Entropía Bibliotecario
04-12-2017 20:06

16564 mensajes
Twitter Web
↕ 2 horas ↕
Tal como dijo salino aquí:

Lo de Derleth es pura pasión por la obra y la persona de Lovecraft. Tal vez esté confundido, pero cuando una obra es editada y pasa por la imaginación del lector, deja de ser propiedad del autor...Osea, que Derleth tenía todo el derecho de hacer su propia interpretación, a pesar de que sea maniqueísta y de baja calidad literaria.

Hacer su propia interpretación sí, imponerla como única válida no.



Gorgo Héroe Bibliotecario
06-12-2017 10:53

3779 mensajes
↕ 1 día ↕

Ya lo dijo Lovecraft.

Tal como dijo Lovecraft:

Todas mis historias se basan en la idea fundamental de que las leyes, los intereses y las emociones comunes a toda la humanidad no tienen ningún valor o significado desde un punto de vista cósmico. Para mí, no hay nada más pueril que ver a una criatura de forma humana, con su cortejo de pasiones y de convenciones, presentado como originario de otro mundo o de otro universo. Para dar la impresión de una verdadera extrañeza, de más allá del espacio, el tiempo y las demás dimensiones hay que olvidarse de cosas tales como la vida orgánica, el bien y el mal, el amor y el odio, y todos los demás atributos de esta raza insignificante que se llama humanidad.

Derleth nunca salió de Nueva Inglaterra y toda su perspectiva del Mito fue humana. No supo ver más allá de Dunwich.

Tal como dijo JamesTurner:

La cosmogonía imaginaria de Lovecraft jamás fue un sistema rígido sino más bien una especie de construcción estética siempre adaptable a su personalidad en evolución y a su cambio de intereses. Así, su goticismo fue dando paso al extraterrestrianismo de sus diez últimos años de vida, con lo que un relato temprano del Mito como "El horror de Dunwich" (1928) se encuentra firmemente alojado en un rincón remoto y degenerado de Nueva Inglaterra, mientras que seis años más tarde, en "La sombra fuera del tiempo", la narración de Lovecraft se convierte en una pirueta deslumbrantemente stapledoniana a través del pasado, el presente y el futuro del universo (...) de haber llegado al decenio de los cuarenta, el Mito habría seguido evolucionando con su creador. Nunca hubo un sistema rígido del que pudiera apropiarse ningún profesional del pastiche.

_de la introducción a "Cthulhu, una celebración de los mitos".

Página 3/3

Nueva opinión

Robert M. Price

EE.UU., Varón
07 Jul 1954 — ¿?

Obras en 42 volúmenes

Opiniones (21)
Últimos mensajes Feed
Ayer a las 19:19: Mensaje de Entropía en 30 monedas (sección de Biblioteca)

Ayer a las 14:29: Mensaje de Neddam en Películas basadas en la obra de Lovecraft (foro de Mitos de Cthulhu)

Ayer a las 09:11: Mensaje de Neddam en Call of the Sea (sección de Biblioteca)

20-05-2024 09:16: Mensaje de Entwistle en Noticias misteriosas (sección de Legado Inforol)

18-05-2024 14:04: Mensaje de Entropía en Insondable (sección de Biblioteca)