The Shadow Over Innsmouth and wrong interpretations

I've just come from adding content to the Lovecraft Lite discussion of H.P.'s "The Shadow Over Innsmouth". It's just one example of a disturbing trend I've noticed, where the story is presented with an interpretation palatable to modern sensibilities instead of going with what the text's evidence, Lovecraft's personal opinions, and the conventions of society at the time of writing suggest.

Basically, I keep seeing people present this story as showcasing an uncharacteristically positive view of alien lineage, where the protagonist supposedly accepts his ancestry and rejoices in it.

The problem is that not only is it truly uncharacteristic of Lovecraft, and society's attitudes at the time, the text makes quite clear that isn't what's going on: biology is destiny, the mind is a plaything of the body, and the protagonist's mind is being overwritten by his inheritance.

There are a number of speculative fiction stories from Lovecraft's era that include the theme overtly instead of in metaphor. Irwin S. Cobb's story "The Unbroken Chain" is an infamous example that basically takes the 'One Drop' doctrine completely seriously.

Basically, "The Shadow Over Innsmouth" is an example of the old belief that 'blood will out' and that a 'tainted' bloodline inevitably manifests. It's in line with the story "Facts Concerning the Late Arthur Jermyn and His Family" and is an example of xenophobia and outmoded beliefs about racial inheritance, and as such REALLY shouldn't be used as an example of tolerance and acceptance.

How can we go about fixing the multiple places on this site where the misconceptions about the story's end can be found?

You need to be more specific on this. Which examples are you talking about?

I've seen it in a variety of places on this site, but the one I mentioned is the one that finally pushed me into doing something about this: Lovecraft Lite.

It's going to be a lot of work to hunt down and correct other cases of the misconception.

I mean... This Is a Wiki. You can correct things at your own discretion, I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for in terms of things that would make this easier if it's just a general rhetoric not specifically tied to a trope that you feel is incorrect.

Although I will say, your aforementioned edit on the LovecraftLite page is already incorrect by virtue of being a Justifying Edit. If you're that committed to proving the words before it are wrong, just correct the whole thing.

I didn't want to start a deletion war. I guess I ought to have simply deleted the material.

Edit: you're wrong, incidentally: the content I added, which you deleted, wasn't justifying the trope at all, but contradicting the explanation given. It doesn't matter much since the whole thing's been removed now, though.

Edited by Melendwyr on Apr 3rd 2024 at 12:52:03 PM

"Contradicting the information given" is closer to the definition of a Justifying Edit than "justifying the trope", despite the name. "Justification" can be "this trope is wrong and bad and doesn't apply to what you just said it does and here's why".

(Also, I feel like this sort of thing normally goes on Ask The Tropers unless it warrants a proper clean-up thread in Short-Term Projects.)

You know, Death of the Author is a thing. Even if Lovecraft intended the ending of "The Shadow Over Innsmouth" to be a 100% Downer Ending, the fact that several readers and critics have interpreted it as "the protagonist comes around to realise that turning into a sea-dwelling humanoid and joining his kin and their ancient civilisation isn't so bad, actually" shows that the possible interpretation is there.

I actually agree with you that modern critics tend to go too far in the direction of the second interpretation, but art usually has some ambiguity to it.

Loads of scholars and writers have considered Satan from Paradise Lost a heroic character, too. Is that misinterpreting Milton's intentions? Hell if I know. Is much gained by shutting down any possibility that Satan is meant to be heroic or sympathetic? Probably not. Ambiguity.

EDIT: Fixed mark-up.

Edited by DoktorvonEurotrash on Apr 5th 2024 at 7:47:36 AM

Lovecraft wrote a story in which the protagonist ends up accepting his heritage, and reconnects with his people who welcome him despite their differences. That he intended this as a bad end is incidental to the story as written.

But my point is that the protagonist doesn't decide to make contact with the Deep Ones and accept them. His mind is overwritten, destroying his personality. The original person is destroyed.

So it's not an embracing of the foreign, it's a "blood will out" horrific metaphor.

In the actual text of the story, the narrator's mind is overwritten and he is turned into an inhuman monster. If you want to create a deliberately oppositional reading that reframes it as a happier ending that's fine, but don't pretend that oppositional reading is the actual text of the story.

Yes, exactly. The issue isn't whether the trope of "man accepts the creatures as more than monsters" is a good or bad thing — it's just not present in the story.

Well, interpretations tend to be subjective b/c we don't have access to the author's mind with which to confirm or deny them. Even knowing his opinions and contemporary societal standards isn't a sure way to tell - sometimes authors articulate different viewpoints across different works, or diverge from societal consensus. And more generally, you can't infer the variance from the pattern.

This sounds to me like something that should be filed under Alternative Character Interpretation or Everyone Is Jesus in Purgatory or whatever Audience Reaction is applicable.