Rob Secundus

Recently, I reread Robert Chambers' THE KING IN YELLOW stories. I wrote about them, today (link below). I went in with the hope that I would come to a better understanding, this time, of what makes Chambers so unique, what elevates his work above Lovecraft and others' in my mind.

Thank you to everyone who's commented, or DMed, or texted me, recently, about this or previous blogs. This sounds like engagement bait again, but god, just knowing that anyone has read this stuff has been a great solace during these recent Bad Brain Times

Recently, I reread Robert Chambers' THE KING IN YELLOW stories. I wrote about them, today (link below). I went in with the hope that I would come to a better understanding, this time, of what makes Chambers so unique, what elevates his work above Lovecraft and others' in my mind.

This is my big Halloween post, I guess, lol. Happy Halloween! Happy Spooktober! I have anxiety and don't know if I or anyone can communicate that! SCARRRRRRYYYYYYY

Recently, I reread Robert Chambers' THE KING IN YELLOW stories. I wrote about them, today (link below). I went in with the hope that I would come to a better understanding, this time, of what makes Chambers so unique, what elevates his work above Lovecraft and others' in my mind.

(That sounds like the generic "don't forget to leave a comment," but in this case, I really do, genuinely, want to know what you think--if these fragment hang together, if you reread the short story, if the experiment worked).

Recently, I reread Robert Chambers' THE KING IN YELLOW stories. I wrote about them, today (link below). I went in with the hope that I would come to a better understanding, this time, of what makes Chambers so unique, what elevates his work above Lovecraft and others' in my mind.

Maybe that combination, the art and the commentary, will communicate something that either alone would fail to communicate. That's my hope, at least. Let me know if you feel it succeeded (though of course, we can both of us never actually know).

Recently, I reread Robert Chambers' THE KING IN YELLOW stories. I wrote about them, today (link below). I went in with the hope that I would come to a better understanding, this time, of what makes Chambers so unique, what elevates his work above Lovecraft and others' in my mind.

In any case, I do feel like I, myself, have previously failed, in my writing, to properly convey what these panic attacks and what this cosmic dread really do feel like. So I want to try an experiment:

Recently, I reread Robert Chambers' THE KING IN YELLOW stories. I wrote about them, today (link below). I went in with the hope that I would come to a better understanding, this time, of what makes Chambers so unique, what elevates his work above Lovecraft and others' in my mind.

I feel like I can understand Chambers--and Lovecraft--much better now, for having had this recent experience. But that opens up new problems for me. If they really were trying to convey this feeling, what does it mean that I couldn't understand that until I had experienced it?

Recently, I reread Robert Chambers' THE KING IN YELLOW stories. I wrote about them, today (link below). I went in with the hope that I would come to a better understanding, this time, of what makes Chambers so unique, what elevates his work above Lovecraft and others' in my mind.

(I also wrote about THE CABIN AT THE END OF THE WORLD, another work that in a very different way captures the cosmic horror of religious experience).

Recently, I reread Robert Chambers' THE KING IN YELLOW stories. I wrote about them, today (link below). I went in with the hope that I would come to a better understanding, this time, of what makes Chambers so unique, what elevates his work above Lovecraft and others' in my mind.

What most clearly divided Chambers from Lovecraft, in my mind, was that Lovecraft writes about scientists & cultists, but Chambers writes about artists & Christians; Chambers, I thought, would better speak to my lifelong experience of Religious Anxiety, itself a kind of cosmic horror.

Damn. RIP, Ryu Murakami. I'd known him by reputation, but it was only last year that I actually started to read him, and he radically changed my understanding of violence and horror in fiction. He's best known for AUDITION (and then, through its adaptation), but IN THE MISO SOUP is life changing.

It made me want to read his work in its entirety; it contributed to my desire and my (thus far, weak) efforts to learn Japanese.

Damn. RIP, Ryu Murakami. I'd known him by reputation, but it was only last year that I actually started to read him, and he radically changed my understanding of violence and horror in fiction. He's best known for AUDITION (and then, through its adaptation), but IN THE MISO SOUP is life changing.

It's hard to describe it without sounding cliched. It's haunting. It's a novel about a serial killer where that same serial killer feels deeply human and cosmically alien. It feels like a book about both modern Japan and modern America, and a kind of deathrot in our cultures.

Damn. RIP, Ryu Murakami. I'd known him by reputation, but it was only last year that I actually started to read him, and he radically changed my understanding of violence and horror in fiction. He's best known for AUDITION (and then, through its adaptation), but IN THE MISO SOUP is life changing.

Issue 4 of this excellent series is out now. As a whole, I think this is an excellent, excellent read. I've been going back to The King In Yellow stories recently, and while this is a different kind of cosmic horror, I think it's an interesting entry in the cosmic horror canon,

especially given how it grapples with art/ artifice. I don't know if Chambers was any kind of influence at all, but one way of reading DYHaMG is a book about LA as a kind of Carcosa (or, more broadly, as a kind of otherworld)

Today, two mini-reviews instead my normal rambling thing. I guess it’s a hot take, but: I liked Street Fighter! Also included: the lukewarm take that Jackbox Party Pack 12 has some good games and some problems. Link in replies.

Today: My review of YOU CAN SEE EVERYTHING, which is a broader reflection on Nathan Fielder's work and how I connect with it (anxieties about our ability to know or be known by anyone, or our ability to know anything with certainty at all). Link below.

most of the review is about THAT THING that the documentary does in the back half, but I'm not posting any screenshots of that section because, well, somehow this documentary is spoilerable lol

Today: My review of YOU CAN SEE EVERYTHING, which is a broader reflection on Nathan Fielder's work and how I connect with it (anxieties about our ability to know or be known by anyone, or our ability to know anything with certainty at all). Link below.

my check-in this week: should cognitive behavioral therapy workbooks count towards your goodreads reading challenge totals