It's not lovecraft without his verbose prose.

The title and description of this book don't lie. You're gonna get the critters Lovecraft came up with in each of these pieces within, and some even get very interesting stories; but that's it.
Every author remains with their own style, their own tone and era of choice. Sadly, none of them so much as approach the trimmings Lovecraft became known for posthumously.
Overall, a lot of the stories felt like the lovecraftian entities or concepts were simply tacked onto an existing draft or idea a given author might've had.

Sie haben diese Rezension bewertet.

Wir haben Ihre Meldung erhalten und werden die Rezension prüfen.

Few Monsters and fewer still Lovecraftian

It pains me to say it, because I wanted to love this collection, but it's at best a mixed bag and at worst a dung heap with a few polished quartzes that look like diamonds compared to the rest.

Now, to be clear, I am not disparaging any of these stories based on the skill of the writers. All of these stories were well written and would have been enjoyable was lovecraft's mythos not shoe-horned into them.

When I purchase a collection of short stories titled "Lovecraft's Monsters", I expect it to contain new looks at the monsters of the most influential horror writer of the 20th century. Maybe some reinterpretations, maybe some exansion upon existing information.

What I do not expect, are stories that involve Frankenstein's creature journeying through the hollow of Earth's interior and achieving catharsis by seeing Moby Dick after destroying the civilisation of the Elder Things. I do not expect stories that portray the Elder Things as being what destroys humanity (and eventually the Universe, apparently? Which completely spits in the face of Lovecraft's Mythos as a whole, and even the characterization of just the Elder Things, but that's a can of worms I don't even want to open yet). These stories were not a welcome change, nor are they what the title would have lead me to believe.

While it may just be personal preference, I do not think that any sort of continuation of existing tales by other authors should go against the spirit of the original work unless it is for a humoristic purpose, and if that is the case, the intention should be made clear. If I wrote and illustrated a children's book about Dr. Seuss's Cat in the Hat losing a battle with crippling depression and committing suicide, people would be upset and wouldn't understand the point. If I advertised a Middle-Earth themed work of gay erotica as a spiritual successor to The Lord of the Rings, people would be upset.

While I know that lovecraftian fiction is a smaller niche and not as well known as Tolkein's fantasy or Seuss' books for children, I hope that this hyperbolic comparison explains my distaste for this collection.

I do not appreciate the humor of a Deep One falling in love with a Ghoul. I don't see how throwing in Elder Things at the end of novella-length tale of Frankenstein's Creature living on after the events of Shelley's novel makes a story one about Lovecraft's Monsters. It annoys me when a tentacled thing harvesting the soul's of musicians that made a pact with the devil is apparently "lovecraftian" by the virtue of its appearance.

Most stories are neither in Lovecraft's style nor do they do his monsters justice. There are a few gems inbetween. "Children of the Fang" and "What we Speak of When We Speak of the Unspeakable" are really good. If only more of the longer stories were better.

Sie haben diese Rezension bewertet.

Wir haben Ihre Meldung erhalten und werden die Rezension prüfen.

5 Leute fanden das hilfreich