Lovecraft Through Deleuzio-Guattarian Gates - Patricia MacCormack

8/17/2019 Lovecraft Through Deleuzio-Guattarian Gates - Patricia MacCormack

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lovecraft-through-deleuzio-guattarian-gates-patricia-maccormack 1/34

Lovecraft through Deleuzio-Guattarian Gates

Patricia MacCormack

Abstract

This essay picks up on Deleuze an Guattari!s brief invocation of the "ork of #$P$

Lovecraft$ Deleuze an Guattari!s pro%ect to evelop a philosophy of sorcery as a moe

of thought that gestures to"ar becoming-imperceptible is consiere by reaing

e&amples in Lovecraft!s 'cosmic horror' of the terrors an revolutions available through

the becomings of his protagonists$ Conte&tualising his "ork outsie of traitional

genres of fantasy an science fiction( this essay offers the reaing of Lovecraft!s

"ritings as a passing through gates$ This liberating practice prouces encounters "ith

abstract alterity( beginning "ith the ethical consieration of the preliminary otherness of

"omen an the animal in Deleuze an Guattari!s "ork( via becoming-monstrous( to an

infinite territory beyon representation( signification( an perception itself$

)n A Thousand Plateaus Gilles Deleuze an *+li& Guattari invoke #$P$ Lovecraft five

times$ ,hile Lovecraft is mentione together "ith such literary figures as Moritz( ,oolf

an particularly Melville( his "ork has less in common "ith those authors than "ith the

abstract emonology of Deleuze an Guattari!s 'ecoming-)ntense' .sec$ /01$ Deleuze

an Guattari claim that Lovecraft 'attempte to pronounce sorcery!s final "or' .TP

23/4 sec$ /01( although Lovecraft has receive little attention in comparison "ith other

"riters loosely groupe into the usually maligne genres of fantasy( science fiction an

gothic horror$ )n this essay ) pull out the evocations in Deleuze an Guattari!s five

references to the story Lovecraft "rote "ith 5$ #offman Price( Through the Gates of the

Silver Key .hereafter TGSK 1( an offer sketches of the "ays in "hich becomings proliferate through Lovecraft!s "ork( in particular throughout his !cosmic horror!

"riting$ ) argue that Lovecraft may offer an affirming philosophy of becoming that

renegotiates traitional perceptions of his "ork as nihilistic or purely horrific$ )n this

"ay ) propose Lovecraft as a catalyst for a philosophical negotiation of the politics of

sub%ectivity an alterity$

This essay is meant to present a series of possibilities an ieas an not a efinitive

summary of stories( so moments from stories are mentione "ithout e&plication or

https://muse-jhu-edu.ez29.periodicos.capes.gov.br/results?section1=author&search1=Patricia%20MacCormack

https://muse-jhu-edu.ez29.periodicos.capes.gov.br/results?section1=author&search1=Patricia%20MacCormack



reference to narratives or events$ Lovecraft!s "ork rarely privileges event an narrative(

"hich ) unerstan as an oeuvre of relations that at their simplest should not be$ The

primary concept unerpinning becomings for Deleuze an Guattari is also relations

"hich refuse relationships that enforce resemblance$ y reaing Lovecraft through

Deleuze an Guattari( ) propose an alternate interpretation of Lovecraft!s "ork as

e&pressing a vitalistic philosophy an inspiring an ethics that aresses the structures of

self posite "ith an as socio-cultural otherness$ ecomings are not commensurate "ith

uni6ue singularities but are prouce from unlike relations$ Lovecraft!s cosmic horror

"orks are obsesse "ith the iea of relations that inevitably structure an unerpin

human e&istence but that remain unkno"n to the human$ The becoming "ith "hich

Lovecraft!s humans participate comes from the 5ler Gos or more usually the Ancient

7nes( a pantheon compose by Lovecraft from various Assyrio-abylonian(

Mesopotamian an particularly ancient 8umerian cacoemons$ The 5ler Gos act as

gatekeepers for the Ancient 7nes or Great 7nes( a group of creatures associate "ith

the terror of possibly unleashing a "orl of hybri relations "ith humans "hich "oul

either "ipe humans out or( if the Great 7nes entere into becomings( "oul "ipe out

sub%ectivity an perception as "e kno" it$ The Ancient 7nes are presente in etail in

Lovecraft!s The Necronomicon( "ritten uner the pseuonym Abul Alhazre( "hich

can be unerstoo together "ith other apocryphal te&ts such as Eibon$ These same

emons appear in the panemonium of Milton!s Paradise Lost ( in 8atan!s fallen lan(

but the iea of a pantheonic pack or a multiplicity "ithin the one an a oneness of the

multiple also resonates "ith the Devil!s response to 9esus!s 6uestion about his ientity:

') am legion( for "e are many' . Holy Bible( Mark 3:;1$ The reaful realisation

overcomes Lovecraft!s protagonists that they have al"ays been in relation "ith an

relate to monstrous entities$ )n this conte&t 8$T$ 9oshi evaluates Lovecraft as an

activating "riter: '<=>ealism is ? not a goal but a function in Lovecraft4 it facilitates

the perception that !something "hich coul not possibly happen! is actually happening'

.@@1$ 9oshi emphasizes that Lovecraft is both an neither a "riter of fantasy fiction

annor of realism$ This claim resonates "ith the crucial element of becoming in

Deleuze an Guattari( namely that becomings are not metaphors an o not occur in a

theatre of representation but rather actualize potentialities of thought$

,hile many of Lovecraft!s stories inclue the atmospheric suspense of gothic fiction

an the preictive elements of science-fiction( his escriptions of fantastic states are



base on a refine kno"lege of physics an a commitment to immersing both the

characters an the reaer in the cosmic horror$ ) argue here that Lovecraft shoul be

unerstoo as a "riter "ho is not against realism but rather "ho attempts to fin a ne"

realism-mobilisation$ Michael #ouellebec6 claims that Lovecraft avois precision '"ith

regars to the istribution of <the Ancient 7nes!> po"ers an abilities$ )n fact their e&act

nature is beyon the grasp of the human min$? those humans "ho seek to kno" more

ineluctably pay "ith maness an eath' .B@1$ Poststructuralism enables us to translate

'maness' as schiz-sub%ectivity an 'eath' as the eath of reifie ientity that is

launching upon becomings$ *or Lovecraft( monsters are not aberrant versions of the

human$ They are monstrous( that is( not in form( but on the levels of perception an

possibility$ ,hat emerges in Lovecraft is that the human is a vague( strategic myth for

ensuring sanity an thus traitional sub%ectivity through a belief in like relations$ The

human is of( inee perhaps create by( monsters that are horrific not only in their

hybri incarnations but also in the impossibility of their being perceive through human

moes of apprehension4 this sho"s that the human is nothing more than its o"n

fantastical myth an the infinite possibility of the beyon "hich is also the "ithin$ The

horror e&perience by Lovecraft!s protagonists nee not close off the possibility that his

reaers "oul negotiate their o"n sub%ectivity an elements of alterity as a specific

system of po"er$ eyon authorial intent( Lovecraft can eman( perhaps raically( a

issipation of po"ers that are contingent on the maintenance of the category of human$

This is the political conte&t of this essay$ Maligne as se&ist an racist( Lovecraft

ironically catalyzes the becomings of the human through infinite an abstracting

paraigms( an thereby re6uires his reaers to reorient po"er relations( along the lines

of poststructuralist( feminist( an postcolonial strategies alike$ Thus 9oshi is correct to

escribe Lovecraft!s "riting as functional $ Lovecraft himself e&plains that supernatural

horror in literature 'emans from the reaer a certain egree of imagination an a

capacity for etachment from everyay life' .Suernatural Horror /21$ As 9oshi points

out( ho"ever( this oes not preclue realism$ Poststructuralism has emonstrate that

there is no simple bifurcation iviing art an thought: "hat "e create constitutes ho"

"e perceive reality( "hich then contributes to "hat "e create( but it is the

ineterminable an non-transcriptive or non-e6uivalent nature of this causality that

makes the functioning of art in life an of life in art interesting$



Along "ith asking "hat Lovecraft means( then( "e also can ask "hat reaing Lovecraft

might do$ Donal urleson premises his poststructural reaing of Lovecraft "hich(

like 9oshi!s analysis( emphasises manner over meaning "ith the reminer that

authorial intent is inaccessible an presence remains a metaphysical phantasy .3-1$ )n

his analysis of Pic!man"s #odel ( urleson states that 'Pickman is absent because his

plural nature enies the metaphysics of presence an self-ientity$? Pickman ivies

himself against himself' .;/1$ )f the reaer oes the same( can an aress to alterity be

mobiliseE urleson interprets 'The Colour 7ut of 8pace' as offering a refutation of

systems themselves4 here( to see 'a visible impression( not belonging to this system( is

to suggest isturbance of the system an( allegorically( subversion of systems generally$

,hat is at "ork here is the unoing of categorical thinking( the unravelling of any

system claiming final mastery( e&haustive cataloguing( total solution( immutable results(

settle !reaing! of reality' ./0B1$ Mastery refuses a negotiatory ethics of ifference$

Against the allegorical emphasis of this claim( ho"ever( ) propose that the functional

activating of potentiality that oes not recognise metaphor as its o"n close circuit

sho"s ho" reaing Lovecraft may challenge close reaings an other techni6ues of

mastering "ors( boies( flesh( perception an sub%ectivity beyon the te&t into the

"orl$ Fltimately ) "ill ask: "hat i Lovecraft o to perception an "hat can "e o

"ith LovecraftE

This essay e&tens "hat Deleuze an Guattari call unnatural participation( unerstoo

as an impossible yet compulsory relation to the perception of cosmic horrors( in orer to

rethink the category of the human$ The figure of gates of perception posits relation as an

opening up rather than as an elliptical return to genesis$ Through emonic relations

Deleuze an Guattari seek abstract machines of relation that are no less real for being

abstract( an argue( along "ith 9oshi( that Lovecraft is a realist because of the functionrather than the content of his "ork$ This means that Lovecraft!s "ritings can be

unerstoo in a "ier( political conte&t instea of as belonging to a genre "hich

istances itself from social life$ Deleuze an Guattari connect this iea to 8pinoza!s

claim that ethics is prouce not by commensurable relation( "hich privileges .usually1

one form an function over another( but rather by "hat is prouce bet"een the t"o$

Lovecraft!s literature offers an art event that is no less real for catalysing ne" gates of

perception an possibilities of relation$ y accessing Lovecraft!s necronomic gates

to"ar the infinite an imperceptible but also the immanently present( "e are force to



think( first( potentiality as an encounter "ith alterity( an( secon( the political risks an

imperatives of ourselves as becoming-other$ This essay is structure as a series of

'gates' in the sense of those briges that Deleuze an Guattari( in $hat is Philosohy(

escribe as creating a 'ne" concept of perceptual space' ./;1$ As becomings concern

not "hat structures relationships .bet"een t"o reifie entities1( but "hat is prouce

through unnatural relations( gates of Lovecraftian perception open "hat Deleuze an

Guattari call unhear of becomings not unhear of because they have never been

hear before( but because they cannot be hear through establishe( ma%oritarian

vocalisations$

)n 'ecoming )ntense' Deleuze an Guattari escribe abstract planes of consistency

"ith reference to sorcery( ergson( 8pinoza( haecceity( plane-making( molecules(

secrets( points( an blocks$ one of these are abstractions or fantasies in the sense that

they o not concern the material$ They are abstract in the sense that the material is

al"ays concerne "ith planes$ Ma%oritarian structures of perception create planes that

are atrophie( aamantly hear of( an able-to-be-hear before their vocalisation

arrives$ Lovecraft!s reaer is not confronte "ith "hat happens to "hom an "hy( but

"ith the unbearable reality of effectuation of unhear-of relations "ithout perception as

e&ternal( causal an commensurable apprehension( "hich is to say "ith a miasmic

material reality: 'a plane of consistency people by anonymous matter( by infinite bits

of impalpable matter entering into varying connections' .Deleuze an Guattari( TP

2331( Hia 8pinoza but primarily as sorcerers( an through Lovecraft( Deleuze an

Guattari thus offer an ethics of becomings "hose main phases are: /1 relations "ithout

likeness( 21 entities "ithout form or function( @1 relations "hich are nonetheless real in

spite of their abstract nature an the abstracting of the entities( I1 these relations forcing

alternate moes of perception "ithout laying ne" structures of apprehension( finallyleaing to 31 the function of art as catalysing becomings in the reaer by emaning

alternate perceptions of relation "ith any an all entities$ As Deleuze an Guattari point

out( these all occur on the same abstract plane$

There is no leaving behin Lovecraft "hen "e close his pages$ Lovecraft!s "ork may be

fantasy( the monsters fictive( the narratives fragmentary( but the relation to possibilities

of thought through imperceptible though terrifically present entities is a gate through

"hich the reaer enters becomings that ifferentiate all relations on a plane of



consistency$ Against 9oshi( Colin ,ilson claims that Lovecraft "as oppose to realism

an particularly to materialism$ ,hat is at stake here is not "hether Lovecraft

personally re%ecte materialism but "hether his negotiation of perception itself has

material effects in the post-structural sense of re-negotiating signifying systems an

relations of ifference an otherness in the "orl$ ,ilson titles his chapter on Lovecraft

the 'Assault on =ationality$' =ationality has traitionally been the realm of ominant(

logocentric( ma%oritarian systems$ ,ilson emphasizes Lovecraft!s obsession "ith the

monstrous( an raiotti the efinition of monster as any eviation from the base level

zero 'human$' raiotti states that 'the iscourse on monsters as a case stuy highlights

? the status of ifference "ithin rational thought' .B1$ ,ilson points out that

Lovecraft 'is "illing to make his setting moern( but it must be remote from

civilisation( a kin of amission of efeat' .I1$ This tenency evinces Lovecraft!s

interest in escribing the connective affectivity of fantastic perception an "orl( rather

than a non-terrestrial ystopia$ *or this reason the political 6uestion becomes 'efeat of

"hatE' *rom a politics of alterity "e coul argue that Lovecraft "orks to efeat the

e&ertion of perception an kno"lege( for the e&ertion of po"er opens the "ay for other

forms of sub%ectivity to emerge$

Lovecraft!s oeuvre falls into t"o categories$ 7ne encompasses more familiar tales of

terror foun in horror stories an novels of the late eighteenth to early nineteenth

centuries4 the other is base on the great Lovecraft mythos$ The stories base on the

mythos aress three main phases$ The first( "hich Lovecraft calls 'transition' or

'mutation(' e&presses the becoming.s1 of protagonists as they begin to corporeally an

psychologically articulate inflection "ith alternate genera( terrestrial teratological an

alien .a ivision that is in fact unclear in Lovecraft1$ The secon is the entering into the

"orls( or( in keeping "ith his isinterest in isambiguation( the omains occupie bythese creatures as gos$ The thir is the istortion of perception$ Lovecraft "as

responsible for creating entire pantheons( universes( "orls( an alternate temporal

realities of evolution an alien e&istence$ The key element "hich ifferentiates Deleuze

an Guattari!s almost %ubilant citation of Lovecraft!s ieas is the lack of attention to

"hat most Lovecraft commentators misguiely call( as oes Michael #ouellebec6 in

the title of his seminal book( Lovecraft!s proclivity against life$ The 6uality of one!s

%ourney to"ar Lovecraft shoul take into account the efinitions of such terms as

'life(' 'human(' an other 5arthly tenets of thoughts( apprehensions of form an



perceptions of states$ Challenging the category of the human unerpins all becomings(

beginning "ith the most obvious falling a"ay from the hu'Man' to "oman( animal an

eventually abstract particles( sonority( an inhuman planes$ Apparently in contraiction

"ith his premise that Lovecraft!s "ork sho"s a nihilistic "eariness "ith life(

#ouellebec6 in fact claims in his preface that through Lovecraft "e can live in poetry

.231$ ,ith the help of Deleuze an Guattari( this essay ultimately e&plores the reaers!

passing through the gates of Lovecraftian perception( "hich involves the creation of a

speech( from the unspeakable to the !unsayable!4 incommensurable relations "hich take

the very acts of "riting an speech to their limits4 accessing the outsie an the

unthinkable4 but "hich are also( an in contraistinction to ,ilson!s claim( is no less

material for oing so$ =esonant "ith speech of the unsayable( Lovecraftian perception is

perception upon a ifferent plane$ .urleson touches on this "hen he cites Derria!s

claim that 'there is nothing outsie the te&t' ./014 in this case( ho"ever( ) "oul ten

more to"ar the "ork of *oucault an lanchot( "hich introuce accountability an

responsibility into this concept$1 Lovecraft can be invigorating if rea as a "riter of the

baro6ue .through( for e&ample( Deleuze!s "ork on Leibniz1 rather than( as many have

claime( the gothic4 if rea through physics as much as folklore4 an as long as one

reas an thinks of Lovecraft as an act of sorcery$ Critics such as 8iegel have claime

persistently that Lovecraft is a "riter of gothic fiction .3/1$ This tenency arises more

from the resonance of trite a%ectives such as !haunte!( !ark!( !horrific! an so forth that

are applie to Lovecraft!s "ork( than from the ifficult task of seeing his "ork as

phylum$ #ybri becomings( ho"ever( coul help reaers escribe Lovecraft as a "riter

of the baro6ue rather than of the gothic .see MacCormack( 'aro6ue )ntensity'1$

=elating to themes an places more moern .though emphatically anti-moernist1 than

the abbey-boun turpitue of G$M$ Le"is an less romantic than the occultism of *$

Marion Cra"for( Lovecraft!s protagonists( ."ho are also unintereste in ram 8toker!s

socio-political tenets of inustrialisation1( are neither haunte nor houne by entities

they "ill eventually overcome$ .To be fair( ho"ever( this repuiation of the gothic is

more reaily foun in Lovecraft!s cosmic tales than in the intimate stories of rea$1

ecomings eal not "ith kins but "ith states$ The %ourneys upon "hich Lovecraft!s

protagonists( an "e as reaers( launch( are %ourneys that involve 'passing through' as

becomings( not the completion of a pro%ect of becoming "ith another element$ A

emonological philosophy after Deleuze an Guattari increasingly becomes less about

https://muse-jhu-edu.ez29.periodicos.capes.gov.br/article/421903#b44

https://muse-jhu-edu.ez29.periodicos.capes.gov.br/article/421903#b44



animals an emons than about gates$ Contagion( packing( proliferation alter the

6ualities of the passing( an each gate coul be escribe as a moe of perception-

consistency$ =anolph Carter unerstans his %ourney through the gates as a 'flu& of

impressions$? <Gates lea> from earth an time to that e&tension of earth "hich is

outsie time( an from "hich in turn the Fltimate Gate leas fearsome an perilously to

the Last Hoi "hich is outsie all earths( all universes an all matter' .Lovecraft( TGSK

3/J-/1$ Carter uses the apocryphal grimoire by the Ma Arab .probably "ritten by

Lovecraft himself1( The Necronomicon$ )n The Necronomicon itself .especially in 'The

ook of 5ntrance an of ,alking(' 'The ook of Calling(' an 'The )ncantations of the

Gates'1( the names an 6ualities of encounters "ith gos are seen as gates( not entities4

so the kin or orer of the gos is also unerstoo as 6ualities of movement an as

locations that incarnate particular impression-states$ Kuality of flu&( guie by

imagination an ream over goal( opens the gates$ The use of a grimoire an con%uration

resonates "ith Deleuze an Guattari!s philosophy of sorcery( not simply because the act

of sorcery unerpins the plane of consistency in both cases( but also because in both

cases the rituals concern 'moes of e&pansion <an>? occupation' .TP 2@;4 sec$ /01$

7ccupying a place "hose territories are e&pane through various reorientations of

impression prouces an anomalous place$ Deleuze an Guattari emphasize that the

a%ective anomalous situates a position or a phenomenon of borering$ )n this sense(

gates( unerstoo as borers of becomings( are use in this essay to escribe Lovecraft!s

ifferent phases of becomings( phases "hich cannot be unerstoo in terms of causality

or of narrative logic$ The first gate aresses Deleuze an Guattari!s three moes of

animality( an Lovecraft!s iea that animality is e&emplifie by propagation$ Gate T"o

aresses the shift from recognisable animal intensity to "hat Deleuze an Guattari call

the emonic animal( "hich appears in Lovecraft as the 5ler Gos an Ancient 7nes$

Gate Three e&plores the "ay( in becomings( the categorically human is crucially absent$

Fsing Deleuze!s "ork on Leibniz( Gate *our begins to aress the move from

becomings as acts of participation "ith other elements( to the altering of moes of

perception as such an posits Lovecraft as a "riter of the baro6ue on account of his

manipulation of the physics of perception-planes$ Gate *ive conte&tualises Lovecraft!s

moes of speech( the compulsion to say the unsayable in orer to access the outsie or

"hat Deleuze an Guattari call the abstract( outsie perceptions of form( function an

comprehension but "ithin the "orl an foun in art4 in this sense the abstraction is



no less material an real$ Gate 8i&( finally( asks "hat ethical imperatives are presente

by Lovecraft!s art$

Gate 1. Orders of Animals, Orders ofDemons

)n Deleuze an Guattari!s "ork( becomings pass through stages "hich can generally be

escribe as evolutionary( an "hich Deleuze an Guattari call 'neoevolutionary$' The

ma%oritarian sub%ect 'man' ."hich is to say( all human sub%ects1 enters into relations

"ith primary elements of minoritarian alterity( becoming-"oman( becoming-animal(an other( a-human forms( to"ar more refine( ambiguous e&pressions of content$ The

animal( ho"ever( is the primary noe for inhuman or a-human becomings$ Deleuze an

Guattari emarcate three orers of animality$ The first is the 7eipal animal( the puppy-

baby .*reu1$ 8econ is the symbolic or archetype animal( "hich creates an

immobilises itself upon a metaphoric structure of signification .9ung1$ The thir animal

is the emonic animal( in "hich t"o elements must be present the animal here is itself

a phenomenon of borering( hybriity( an metamorphicity$ Demonic animals are

efine as 'pack or affect animals that form a multiplicity( a population( a becoming( a

tale' .TP 2I/4 sec$ /01$ Hampires( "ere"olves( an emons belong to this thir orer of

animality$ ecause they are both familiar an unfamiliar to us( ho"ever( they seem to

resonate "ith the negotiations of "hat a human-animal coul be( both "hen it is

mistakenly rea through the first t"o orers of animality( an "hen its becomings are

overlooke$ )t involves a relation "ith an abstract animal$ 7eipal animality the

family puppy-baby manifests its narcissism through sub%ective o"nership '!my! cat(

!my! og' .TP 2I04 sec$ /01$ 7eipal animals affirm the self through the construction of

an anthropomorphising family system in "hich the animal is allo"e to emerge only

through conitional love that fulfills the parameters of the substitute chil$ 8ince the

animal is inferior in both its structural position an its species( it resolves the "oman!s

penis envy an the man!s castration an&iety$ The secon orer of animals is the

archetypal animal "ho is investe "ith human 6ualities an effectively only has( or

represents( human 6ualities$ These animals are e&tricate from animality( but the range

of their symbolic function is almost limitless$ oth systems in no "ay inclue animals(



%ust human( signifying systems$ ,e nee to evelop the criti6ue further here( ho"ever(

so that the "ere"olfemonvampire is not misunerstoo as some uncanny( gothic

entity$ Lovecraft claims that he seeks 'to make the flesh creep' .6t$ in ,ilson @1 more

than to unfurl narrative through characters$ This focus on flesh irectly challenges

metaphor an the istance bet"een reaer an te&t$ As a kin of physio-cerebral

affectivity( it issolves metaphor an makes the te&t politically accountable for its

catalyzing of ifferent moes of thinking$

Demons thus belong to the thir orer of Deleuze an Guattari!s animal ta&onomy$

ecoming through a pact-pack "ith the emon also escribes the first phase of

Lovecraftian sorcery$ 7ne of the remarkable contributions Lovecraft makes to literature

is his formulation of a pantheon of gos$ Fnlike other fantasy "riters( ho"ever(

Lovecraft creates gos "ithin this "orl( "hich is also fole together "ith "orls

outsie of time an space$ As Gates( Lovecraft!s gos are responsible for the horror of

altering moes of being in the "orl( an they o so by creating the pure immanence of

multiple "orls$ Ta&onomies of monsters( orers of gos( "orls emarcate as

fantastical or real are absent in Lovecraft( an it is the very absence of these

emarcations "hich causes horror$ Lovecraft!s gos lack the signification an

sub%ectification that( accoring to Deleuze an Guattari( facilitates ma%oritarian po"er(

"hich in turn sanctions the emergence of sub%ects$ The entities "ith "hich the

protagonists enter becomings are abstract an ambiguous .as emergent entities they are

al"ays there but not entirely apprehensible1$ ecomings in Lovecraft are also

compulsory the protagonists have no choice( but "hile horror is thereby irrefutably

catalyse( it comes from the loss( an not from the estruction( of the self$ These

monsters estroy through alliance rather than murer$ Lovecraft emphasises that

becomings are alreay available an that "e al"ays alreay choose the e&tent to "hich"e resist or submit to the everyay alliances "e make$ )n this "ay he emonstrates that

retaining reifie sub%ectivity is as much an act as "oul be letting go of it$ Deleuze an

Guattari use the concept of emons to e&pan the intersection of the hybri "ith the

animal$ Aesthetic an apocryphal emons such as "ere"olves an vampires are single

e&pressions of human-animal elements( inherently metamorphic an part of packs$

8ince emons must be invoke after first being imagine as fabulations( thinking

becoming-emon for them re6uires a philosophy of sorcery$ Lovecraft!s lo"er gos are

fabulations of emons( inter-species hybris "ith orers of non-mammalian animals(



an this Deleuzio-Guattarian ine& is "here Lovecraft!s a-human becomings begin$

Deleuze an Guattari o not offer aesthetic( cinematic or literary e&amples of their

emons the evil( "ere"olves an vampires because these arise as particle verb

bans rather than as infernal monsters or as metaphorical( figurative( or symbolic

entities$ ,hen e&amples are offere( they resonate aroun becomings "hich are not as

familiar to us as those of the "ere"olf an vampire$ Precisely because these monsters

emerge through so many varie e&amples of actualise virtualities( ho"ever( they

remain abstract potentiality( "hereas the specific literary citations of ,oolf!s becoming-

monkey( Ahab!s becoming-"hale( an so on( are e&amples of singularities before the

formation of ne" threshol packs$

Gate 2. From Demonic Heredity to

Abstract Alliance

Gate 2 focuses on the emonic in Deleuze an Guattari!s elements of becoming( as

abstract animal entities$ This Gate e&plores the liminal ban bet"een a-human( animal

elements an the emon that is beyon animal-element perception$ Lovecraft!s gos are

not monsters4 they o not belong to e&tra-human orers from "hich they threaten to

slaughter the emarcate human( an they o not resie in the entirely e&ternal fantasy

"orls that are foun in many traitional horror stories$ Ancient 7nes an 5ler Gos

are beyon *rankenstein!s creature an Dracula( an they are too earthly present to be

classifie along "ith the alien gos an monsters of fantasy novels$ *or the

renegotiation of our becomings( it is important to note that "e cannot categorise them as

outsie( either in form or in "orl$ They are immeiately present but also "ithout

presence since they are not recognisably other or antagonistic$ The 6ualities of

Lovecraft!s gos an entities are( furthermore( al"ays themselves in states of becoming$

They inclue multiple intensities an mobile 6ualities of many animals( particularly

cephalopos( fish$ an insects( as "ell as a bacterial forms of bubbling( molecular

viscosity$ As the gos are in their o"n states of becoming( their function as an

anomalous( allie term is alreay beyon our capacity to name them$ As hyper-hybris(

they also occupy territories that coul be escribe as having their o"n becomings

"ater-lan "orls( outer-space-"ithin-this space an so forth( "hat Deleuze an



Guattari call a 'Fniverse fiber' that is 'strung across borerlines' .TP 2I;4 sec$ /01$ )n

aition( since they cannot be estroye( their states of 'life' are tentative$ They are

incapable of killing humans( but only change their state of life( as they are neither ea

nor alive$ The threshols an gates Lovecraft!s monsters force us to negotiate are

resistant( not only to being estructive monsters( but also to being hybri entities that

"e coul emarcate for our becomings$ Their 6ualities of contagion( as hybris or

outsie entities( preclue them from being monsters( an thus resonate "ith Deleuze an

Guattari!s terms for elements of becoming( from "olf-"hale-rat to emonic

imensionality an borerline propagation$ The Ancient 7nes are escribe physically

as threshol creatures both fish an fo"l( flesh an fur( a kin of sentient( amphibious

nebula from a pre-human( pre-historical time that is both more civilise an intelligent

than the human time( and barbarically uncivilise$ )nevitably an most horrifically( the

Ancient 7nes reprouce the limit restricting even hybri animality from a pure

abstraction-becoming$ The animal elements of the Ancient 7nes( "hile resiually

name as animal( are in fact cephalopoan( insect an other aamantly non-mammalian

forms$ Cthulhu is seen in bas-relief as a s6ui ragon( 'an octopus( a ragon( an a

human caricature? <"hose> pulpy tentacle hea surmounte a grotes6ue an scaly

boy "ith ruimentary "ings' .Lovecraft( 'The Call of Cthulhu(' hereafter T%% ( J@1$

Dagon is a fish-man-go .Lovecraft( 'Dagon' /J1$ The encounter bet"een protagonists

an their becoming-Ancient 7nes reflects this threshol$ Cthulhu lives a threshol

consciousness( lying ea but reaming$ The geography of Cthulhu!s fallen cities of

=!lyeh lies at the threshol of the mountains of maness( at immeasurable epths

beneath the sea .apparently near e" ealan1$ =anolph Carter!s becoming is 'human

an non-human( vertebrate an invertebrate( animal an vegetable' .Lovecraft( TGSK

32J1( an the unname protagonist of The Shado& 'ver (nnsmouth is a man-froglike-

fish or fishlike-frog( 'flopping( hopping( croaking( bleating' .Lovecraft( TS( I3I1$

'Propagation by epiemic( by contagion( has nothing to o "ith filiation by hereity$?

These combinations are neither genetic nor structural4 they are interkingoms' .Deleuze

an Guattari( TP 2I/-24 sec$ /01$ )n 'The 8hao" 7ver )nnsmouth' the kingom of

immortal creatures of the sea arises to infect the citizens of )nnsmouth "ith molecular

intensities( merging lan "ith sea an human "ith frog-fish-flesh$ The narrator shares a

family line "ith these hybri "orshippers of Dagon an Cthulhu( but genealogy

prouces a uni6ue specificity of hybriity$ #e tells us that 'them as turn into fish things

an! "ent into the "ater "ouln!t never ie' .I/I1$





e6uivalences emarcate through political( isomorphic binaries of gener( age or race1

nor structural .base on arboreal hierarchy an genealogy1$ )n aition( their

immortality( like their genealogy( shoul be unerstoo not as a chronology "ithout

en( but rather as time "ithout uration( simultaneity incluing constant ifferentiation$

The contemplation of this concept-state is often the catalyst for the protagonists!

maness( but only "hile they remain in the human "orl( "ith its moes of spatial

isambiguation an unfurling temporality$ ,e hear in TN% the much-cite couplet

ma&im of the Ancient 7nes( also foun in The Necronomicon( that 'That "hich can

eternal lieAn "ith strange aeons even eath may ie' ./I21$

Gate 3. Inhuman BecominsThe ma%oritarian( it coul be argue( belongs to no category other than the particular

species of the 'human$' After becoming-"oman( through "hich "omen must also pass(

Deleuze an Guattari call to the human 'becoming-animal$' The shift from being

"oman to becoming "oman .a eeply problematic( precariously fetishistic concept for

"hich Deleuze an Guattari have been maligne1 is a movement from a category

emergent only through ma%oritarian e&pression( as lacking an oppresse( to "oman as

a singularity or territory "ith no opposite$ The very fact that Deleuze an Guattari posit

"oman as the first( surely horrific step for the ma%oritarian male to take in his

relin6uishing of po"er eno"s this politics of alterity "ith the moo of Lovecraft!s

protagonists "ho( ultimately( fear becoming-nothing( a status to "hich minoritarians

have long been relegate$ The becoming-cosmic( ho"ever( sho"s that nothing is

everything( %ust as many feminists( such as )rigaray in An Ethics of Se)ual *ifference(

have argue that "oman( in 'lacking(' is both less than an more than one$ *rom the

efinite politics of feminists of ifference( "e come to the larger paraigm of the human

itself$ ,hile Lovecraft!s characters o not pass through a becoming-"oman( they o

leap to a becoming-animal that is neither human nor animal( an both$ )nsofar as the

animal is nothing e&cept the not human( becoming animal begins the ablation of the

category of the human$ As Lovecraft!s protagonists e&ten to"ar becomings that offer

no recognisable elements( they can no longer be organise as hybris of relations

bet"een t"o( "hether animalhuman or humanemon$ Through abstract gos( this

stage of becoming is able to eroe entirely all resiue of the human$ eyon the notion



of the 'post-human(' "hich suggests an 'after(' Lovecraft!s becoming-inhuman is "ithin

so-calle humans( immanently available( an inee inevitable an compulsory$ o

longer hybri "ith e&o-kingoms( the primary term 'human' can no longer be escribe

as becoming$ The ivisibility of becoming entities becomes increasingly ifficult$ This

section e&plores the conception of relations of a-human or inhuman( non-ifferentiate(

nebulous becomings as baro6ue$ Lovecraft!s monsters are unto themselves not scary( the

events not frightening( compare "ith facing the ultimate horror of losing sub%ectivity

to the very molecular level of the human( the mammal( the invertebrate( the plant( the

bacterial$

)n Lovecraft!s tales events are associate "ith phases of relation an prouction( not

presente in increments of narrative evolution$ *or this reason ) "oul e&ten Deleuze!s

"ork on Leibniz an argue that both Deleuze an Guattari!s

"ere"olvesvampiresemons an Lovecraft!s "ork eal "ith the baro6ue$ Like the

baro6ue( Lovecraft!s "ork consists not of collisions bet"een forms but rather of acts of

relations bet"een substances( or( as Leibniz puts it( the po"er to act an be acte upon

.B/1$ The baro6ue is important for the politics of ifference in my argument because

Leibniz argues here that boies epen on their affective relations "ith other boies in

orer to efine themselves$ Techni6ues of subsumption an oppression through the

reification of ominant ientities amount to uneven relations "ithout participation$

)nstea of perpetuating omination or suborination through refusal an e&trication(

attention to the affects an fluiity of boies in pro&imity "ith an inflecte through

one another re6uires that our apprehension of those boies negotiates the possibility of

differing ourselves$ *or Leibniz( all boies are moification or e&tension( e&isting as

flui aggregates( an their reality is not an essence "ithin these boies but rather( as

Leibniz "rites follo"ing Democritus( 'they epen for their e&istence on opinion or custom' .J;1$

Critics have accuse Lovecraft of nihilism( pessimism .L+vy1( paranoia .Carter1 an(

from an esoteric angle( 6ualities of negativity an poverty-stricken intangibility .Pasi(

#anegraaff1( even if the critics have not necessarily presente these 6ualities as ba$

More celebratory e&plorations have suggeste that Lovecraft!s art allo"s encounters

"ith the sublime .=alickas1$ As a phenomenon of encountering an e&cess of

signification that is no less material for being so( the sublime offers a %ubilant reaing of



the ultimate issipations that Lovecraft!s protagonists unergo$ )n irect reference to a

politics of feminist alterity( risteva!s *esire in Language propose the sublime as an

integral element of the a-signifying systems encountere in becoming-"oman$

Lovecraft also has been utilise in 6ueer theory an as a catalyst for activism

.MacCormack( 'Fnnatural Alliances'1( in illustration of 9oshi!s point that his is a "riting

of function$ Goorich has e&plore Lovecraft as a mannerist( an has pointe to the

plastic-artistry of his literary style$ )t is crucial to fin %oy in Lovecraft( as it is here "e

fin liberation from ominant signifying systems$ The 6uestion then becomes( '"ho

benefits from maintaining these systemsE' =eaing Lovecraft as a baro6ue "riter( "e

can fin voluminous material .inee all too material1 becomings$ The horror perhaps

comes from the fact that these becomings are not metaphors4 they are instea all too real

an in fact invert metaphorisation( "ith no recourse to meaning$ *ar from isappearing

or being consume( Lovecraft!s characters are unable to escape( through eath or

victory( the reality of their metamorphoses$ Leibniz states: ' A cororeal substance can

neither arise nor erish e)cet by creation or annihilation+ %onse,uently things &hich

have souls do not arise or erish- but are only transformed ' .;21$ Carter an Charles

De&ter-,ar( among others( neither live nor ie( an at best theirs is not a fear of

transformation but of an irresistible 'beckoning' .Lovecraft( TGSK 3031$ ,hatever is

annihilate is human$ )nee perhaps these stories are nihilistic for the human( al"ays

an only lacking or against only human life( the human unerstoo as that "hich

Leibniz!s ethics repuiates an entity as a unifie one$ ecoming-inhuman is not eath(

'for no substance perishes( though it can become 6uite ifferent' .Leibniz I@1$

aro6ue transformation is borering( infinitely an infinitesimally fractal( aggregate

plurality( subivision( 'moification as e&tension' .Leibniz JB1$ The specificities of

each of these 6ualities are not antagonistic( an unlike relations offer an ethics of ifference that is crucial to minoritarian stuies an becomings$ The unname entity

.probably Nog-8othoth1 that conclues 'The Dun"ich #orror' . *H 1 speaks half in

5nglish an half in imperceptible an olfactory utterances$ )t 'has been split up into

"hat it "as originally mae of( an can never e&ist again$ )t "as an impossibility in a

normal "orl$ 7nly the least fraction "as really matter in any sense "e kno"'

.Lovecraft( *H /3/-21$ The entity is calle a 'human blasphemy' ./321( not because it

is evil or aberrant( but because it coul not be perceive an thus kno"n as part of the

'normal' "orl occupie by phantasies of human an other emarcate entities$



Politically( minoritarians "omen( 6ueers( racial others an so forth have been

consiere in this "ay( an in response have emane a philosophy of re-negotiating

signifying systems$ *aith here is not belief in Go but in the human an its associate

6ualities of singularity( reifie sub%ectivity( an unifie( homogenise e&pression of

substance$

Continental philosophy fre6uently emphasises that art first involves letting go of the

category of the human$ *or Lyotar( art makes us become-inhuman .21$ Deleuze states

that esiring machines only occur bet"een the non-human an the human . *esert

(slands 2I@1( an Deleuze an Guattari efine art-affect as man!s <sic> non-human

becoming .$hat is Philosohy. /21$ *or Guattari( the most important of the three

ecologies of environment( social relations( an human sub%ectivity( is the rupture of

human sub%ectivity through an entirely ifferent logic .The Three Ecologies 2B( 3J1$

*rom less than human becomings hybri animal to abstract hybri becomings

emonic relations baro6ue becomings no" reach the inconceivable outsie of all

human thought the unthinkable$ Guattari claims that his thir ecological register of

aesthetic-ethics( the reterritorialization of sub%ectivity( is the most crucial( "hile

*oucault sho"s that thought "hich is itself outsie can( through art( offer access to an

outsie sub%ectivity( but "ithin the "orl an art!s ecstasies$

A thought that stans outsie sub%ectivity( setting its limits as thought from "ithout(

articulating its en( making its ispersion shine forth( taking in only its invincible

absence? regain<s> the space of its unfoling( the voi serving as its site( the istance

in "hich it is constitute an into "hich its immeiate certainties slip the moment they

are glimpse$

.*oucault /3-/J1

)t is imperative to let go of the human in orer to encounter an fol "ith art( "hich

unfols the self to"ar infinity an pure potentiality "ithout genesis or estination$ This

unfoling is an ethical opening that sacrifices ma%oritarian access an e&pression to the

po"ers of the human$ Mrs$ Garner!s maness in Lovecraft!s 'The Colour 7ut of 8pace'

.T%'S 1 presents her as screaming 'about things in the air "hich she coul not escribe$

)n her raving there "as not a single specific noun( but only verbs an pronouns$ Things

move an change an fluttere( an ears tingle to impulses "hich "ere not "holly



souns' .2301$ The 'monster' of T%'S is a 6uality of luminescence an bubbling of

ooze that is threatening as affect an not as act$ Like an encounter "ith art that appears

to come from outsie( the encounter "ith this entity resists the anne&ation of a%ectives

to nouns( an results in no more than vague fragments of escriptions of events( through

"hat Deleuze an Guattari escribe as a variety of sensation-compouns: vibration( the

embrace or clinch( "ithra"al( ivision( an istension t"o elements ra"n apart but

together by the light( air( or voi4 they emphasise that ' Affects are recisely these

nonhuman becomings' .$hat is Philosohy. /JB1$ *or Lyotar( *oucault( lanchot( an

=anciOre( art manates letting go of the category of the human$ )n contraistinction to

the assessment of Lovecraft as against life( perhaps "e can celebrate him as a

philosopher of alterity( even if he is( ironically( his o"n first victim .consier this

alongsie his ignoring "omen to a large e&tent an his &enophobia( both of "hich have

been "ritten on e&tensively1$ 7f course such a celebration "oul be anchore by 9oshi!s

claim that Lovecraft!s "ork is about "hat "e do "ith it: if Lovecraft!s "ork presents a

political philosophy of alterity beyon authorial intent( it oes so only in the "ay that it

is utilise an not simply in "hat it says$

Through becomings( 'The Call of Cthulhu!s' 9ohansen an others are literally

s"allo"e up( ingeste into the Lovecraftian "orl$ To be s"allo"e is to be ingeste

into the fols of the monster$ The self becomes inherently part of the fols an folings-

in of these "orls( until all perception is envelope "ithin a plane of Lovecraftian

monsters an hybris$ The fole self cannot become e&tricate from this plane( an

instea becomes "illingly infecte by the contagion of the monstrous other planes(

incluing those of other becomings such as "oman or feminism$ Thus "e come to

realise that Cthulhu is not a creature or form but purely a moe of .actually

imperceptible1 perception: 'There "ere certain proportions or imensions "hich ) inot like' .Lovecraft( TN% /@014 '#orrors of a form not to be surmise' .Lovecraft( 'The

Dream-Kuest' @;21$ The baro6ue is infinite an inefinite becomings of form( an thus

emphasizes the impossibility of apprehening anything e&cept through aspect( turn( or

intensity$ Demons re6uire the repuiation of humanity( an Deleuze an Guattari!s

emonic bans first re6uire getting ri of human classifications: 'Lovecraft applies the

term !7utsier! to this thing or entity' .TP 2I34 sec$ /01$



)n orer to enter into this beyon-humanness "e must act as sorcerers( "hich re6uires

Deleuze an Guattari!s four stages of emonic pact-making$ The first is the alliance "ith

a emon( through "hich the human passes into the pack( "hich is the secon phase$ The

thir sees this pack create a borerlan "ith another pack( "hich then allo"s the

borerline to guie the future.s1 of the human-animal collective pack intensities$ The

fourth stage is presumably the stage of ethics( creativity( an thought( as it involves the

prouction of irections that most benefit each particle of each pack-pact( an al"ays

changes the micro- an macro- 'things' "ithin an bet"een the borerline$ The

"ere"olf( emon( an the vampire( as not kno"able but thinkable fabulations( are

"aves or bans an not figures or concepts or( as in $hat is Philosohy.( they are

pre-philosophical$ ,ere"olves( emons( an vampires inclue elements similar to the

human an to animal elements( but form strange( ne"( mobile( an "hat Deleuze an

Guattari call unnatural participations .TP 2I21 an "hat Lovecraft perhaps "oul call

'isturbing combinations' .TGSK 3@1$ They are not uncanny( as they are not symbolic

forms se"n together into emarcate half-half mythic monsters$ Accoring to a ne"

grammar of becoming( it is not a cobbling together of t"o nouns( but rather the

movement-combination-aspect of the familiar( or the verbing( that creates the hybri:

'ut in the te&t itself it i inee reek "ith "oner4 for here "as no script of any

"holesome age( but the laboure strokes of meiaeval arkness( scarcely legible to the

laymen "ho no" straine over it( yet having combinations of symbols "hich seem

vaguely familiar' .Lovecraft( 'The Case of Charles De&ter ,ar' 2B@1$

)f "e think the borerline as a plane of immanence( then the borerline 'implies a sort

of groping e&perimentation an its layout resorts to measures that are not very

respectable( rational or reasonable$ These measures belong to the orer of reams$? To

think is al"ays to follo" the "itch!s flight' .Deleuze an Guattari( $hat is Philosohy.I/1$ )n 'Dreams in the ,itch-#ouse' ro"n 9enkin( the hybri rat-human .nicely

resonant "ith Deleuze an Guattari!s citation of the film $illard 1 an his "itch-ally

eziah Mason seuce ,alter Gilman to"ar 'lines an curves that coul be mae to

point out irections leaing through the "alls of space to other spaces beyon( an <she>

ha implie that such lines an curves "ere fre6uently use at certain minight

meetings' .@0J1$ The borerline is one imension cut from a plane of consistency$



Gate !. A"#erce$tion

Lovecraft!s protagonists initially shift their moes of perception to reams an

memories that o not belong to their history or imagination$ This alreay implies the

suspension of any recognisable moes of apprehension( an compels us to rea in a

similar "ay$ Dreams( memories an imagination are not oppose to reality but belong to

ifferent orers of perception that nonetheless effect alterations in sub%ectivity an sho"

reality to be a 6uality$ The 6uestion is not so much "hat "e rea in Lovecraft but ho&

"e rea$ Lovecraft!s is an impossible pro%ect of escribing the inescribable( speaking

about the unsayable an e&plicating events "hich are beyon our capacity to follo"$ #is

"ors are not comple&( so that if both "riter an reaer lack "ors for the unsayable(

an if they are open to art as outsie an to the inhuman becomings that literature

invokes( this lack is precisely the ethical point of creating ne" relations of prouction

bet"een art an reaer that cannot be set o"n( structure( or unerstoo as preceing

the event of reaing$ The ecision to open to"ar a revolution in perception is the point

of becomings$ Deleuze an Guattari escribe a novel as populate by the multiple

perceptions of the characters an the shao"y but ubi6uitous perception of the "riter$

Lovecraft( ho"ever( kno"s neither his o"n perception nor those of his characters(

because in his "ork perception itself is the character( content an narrative$ Perception(

in this "orl an in the palimpsest "orls "ithin an outsie of it( is an incanescent(

fantastical reality$ 5&amples of unbearable( "onrous perception of the present as

orinarye&traorinary are foun in Lovecraft!s belove Arthur Machen$ )n 'A *ragment

of Life(' "ithin an beneath Lonon there emerges an arcane( natural "orl( a 'e"

Life' in "hich( along "ith 'unhear-of %oys( there are also ne" an unhear-of angers'

.Machen ;B1( an "hich thus e&emplifies Deleuze an Guattari!s unhear of becomings$

Lovecraft!s task becomes impossible in the final phases of the becomings he catalyses(

"hen perception itself resists becomings$ et"een the a-human an thinking the pure

plane of consistency in Lovecraftian becomings( a-perception navigates this impossible

but nonetheless actual task( %ust as the becoming itself is increasingly ifficult to

negotiate$ =ecalling Deleuze an Guattari!s emphasis on abstraction as no less real( "e

can say that a-perception is the no less material e&perience of becoming beyon

escription or apprehension$ A-perception is crucial for thinking outsie establishe



thought an ackno"leging the reality an transgressive potential of "hat "e cannot

kno" but must nonetheless e&perience( %ust as the minoritarian is force to e&perience

oppression by virtue of remaining unkno"n an unkno"able in a ma%oritarian economy$

)nee it is precisely because the potentiality of a-perceptive becomings cannot be

eferre to kno"lege or apprehene as concept-ob%ect( but instea is al"ays "ithin

this real( material plane( that it is necessary for mobilizing sub%ectivity through art(

"hich emans perceiving ifferently$ )t is no accient that these shifts of perception in

Lovecraft!s "ork are the most ifficult to rea an the points at "hich the protagonists

lose their mins or( properly speaking( their humanity an sub%ectivity$ They( as "e(

must learn to perceive ifferently( an the '"e' is the first casualty$

Alliance through becomings an packing creates both communal or share fols

bet&een the threshol an ne" fols "ithin the singular self .an alternation of

Deleuze!s habitus( "hich he borro"s from Leibniz1$ This re6uires alteration in

perceptions through alterations in being( the threshol of "hich perhaps "e coul

escribe( as Lovecraft oes in 'The Fnnamable(' as a 'hybri nightmare' .2@21$ '5very

perception is hallucinatory because perception has no ob%ect? but from the haze of ust

"ithout ob%ects the figures themselves raise up from the epths an fall back again'

.Deleuze( The /old ;@-;I1$ Peaslee loses his ability to istinguish bet"een his ream

e&istence an his terrestrial one an thus his ability to istinguish actuality from

hallucination: ')nee it seeme to the octors that ) lost interest in my proper

personality as soon as ) foun the case of amnesia accepte as a natural thing'

.Lovecraft( 'The Fnnamable' IJB1$ #e e&periences perception as fragmentary an

fractal( as a series of perspectival inflections of the fol .an therefore out of time(

because linear time is create through micro an macro shifts rather than through a

serialisation of acting ob%ects1$ 9oe 8later in Beyond the $all of Slee forsakes his becoming-Dagon for a pure imperceptible perception: 'At this point the thought "aves

abruptly cease an the pale eyes of the reamer or shoul ) say ea man

commence to gaze fishily' .Lovecraft( B$S I1$

Along t"o tra%ectories( through their becomings an their entrance into the geoplanes of

the Ancient 7nes( Lovecraft!s protagonists transform graually( not through their being

or location but through their perception$ Their becomings shift from alliances to being-

apprehension-simultaneity "ith all particles( an so are beyon the nee for space an



time$ 'Memory an imagination shape im half pictures "ith uncertain outlines amist

the seething chaos( but Carter kne" they "ere memory an imagination only'

.Lovecraft( TGSK 3/1$ To propose Lovecraft as a "riter of the baro6ue is also to point

to the chaos that is a key element of his renegotiation of non-5ucliean physics$

Deleuze an Guattari like"ise escribe philosophy( science( an art as "anting to 'tear

open the firmament an plunge into chaos' .$hat is Philosohy. 2021$ Philosophy(

accoring to them( gives us variations( science variables( an art varieties$ As sorcerers

of baro6ue emonology( Lovecraft an his protagonists begin "ith becoming an "ith

seeing various forms of hybri monsters$ They then shift through variants of the

metamorphic mobility of self an monster in action( an reach their pinnacle as

actualise perceptions of virtual potentialities$ #ere( the protagonists shift their thinking

from seeing an from being infecte by the molecules of monster variants( to"ar

infernal( seething forms( to aberrant angles of being an apprehening$ This may also be

the point at "hich Lovecraft himself shrugs off the fetters of gothic "riting an creates

the hybri( folklore-physics systems through "hich becomings occur$ 'on-5ucliean

calculus an 6uantum physics are enough to stretch any brain4 an "hen one mi&es

them "ith folklore? <Gilman> began to connect his mathematics "ith the fantastic

legens of eler magic' .Lovecraft( *$H ( @0J1$

Lovecraft calls his blin( ma go yarlathotep the cra"ling chaos$ Gilman fears

alighting in the 'spiral black vortices of that ultimate voi of Chaos "here reigns the

minless emon sultan Azathoth' . *$H ( @I@1$ yarlathotep an Azathoth( in aition

to many of the other Ancient 7nes .incluing the ea but reaming Cthulhu1( are blin(

minless an ea only "hen evaluate accoring to human moes of signifying

perception an 6ualitative states$ )n Lovecraft!s rarely cite poetic "ork( yarlathotep!s

'iiot chaos blo"s 5arth!s ust a"ay' .'yarlathotep' l$ /I1 even though 'throngs presse aroun( frantic for his commans' .'yarlathotep' 31$ An then(

7ut in the minless voi the emon bore me

Past the bright clusters of imensione space

Til neither time nor matter stretche before me

ut only Chaos( "ithout form or place$

.'Azathoth' /-I1



The beautiful( brief poem Azathoth invokes reaming( bat-things flopping( an

monstrous chance-combinings$ These ab%ect blasphemers( beyon the cares of ominant

systems an their heas( are sorcerers "ho betray their positions as heas of pack4 '!)

am his messenger!( the emon sai an in contempt he struck his Master!s hea'

.'Azathoth' /@-/I1$ Lovecraft!s moments of horror occur "hen iscursive systems such

as Azathoth!s po"ers ."hich have their o"n emonic( hybri philosophy1 or( .if rea as

esire1( Deleuze an Guattari!s unnatural nuptials .TP 2I01 e&press a possible chance-

combining of the three orers of chaos! emergence that are escribe in $hat is

Philosohy.

Gate %. From the &ns$ea'able to the&nsayable

Lovecraft!s is a task of "riting the un-"ritable$ Like other 'fantasy' "riting( Lovecraft!s

prose is often evaluate as simultaneously lacking in substance an hampere by

meloramatic overuse of a%ectives$ #e epicts the maness of T%'S !s Mrs$ Garner by

groping for affects( a%ectives an pronouns "ithout his language alighting on form(

nouns( or entities apprehensible through human perception$ ,ilson( along "ith many

other critics( claims many of his stories are 'atrociously "ritten' .I1$

Maligning Lovecraft for his flori an enflaming a%ectives an for his non-e&istent

narratives fails to aress the inescribability of "hat he is compelle to escribe

palimpsest "orls beyon apprehension( selves incapable of speech( becoming-

polyvocal but not in any language istinguishable by humans( an e&istence outsie

time$ )n 'The Fnnamable(' in spite of Manton!s vague kno"lege that

the min sometimes hols visions an sensations of far less geometrical( classifiable

an "orkable nature( he believe himself %ustifie in ra"ing an arbitrary line an

ruling out of court all that cannot be e&perience an unerstoo by the average citizen$

esies( he "as almost sure that nothing can be really 'unnamable'$ )t in!t soun

sensible to him$

.221



)n his attempt to encounter these "orls( Lovecraft is compelle to use language that

Deleuze an Guattari more sympathetically escribe as 'graniose an simplifie' . TP

23/1$ )n pursuit of thinking the unthinkable an perceiving the imperceptible( Lovecraft

offers his literary art as "riting the un-"ritable( "hich is to say as speaking the

unsayable$ 8uch language must be use in becoming-inhuman( because escription or

speech that interiorizes entities "ith genesis an estination( content an limits of

possibility( is the language of kno"lege an the limite synta& of e&perience$ )f "e can

speak "e speak 'as' sub%ects$ *oucault claims that speech coming from the outsie is a

moe of esire because 'one is attracte precisely to the e&tent that one is neglecte'

.@/1$ As long as literature affirms an reifies the kno"n( this moe of art enies us

becomings$ 8peaking( hearing( an reaing( as events of literary-affect( bring together a-

perception( the fol( an becoming-inhuman$ 5ncountering the outsie involves the

ecstasy of being neglecte of being present "ithout being a recognisable presence

an this is precisely "hy Peaslee fins his boy harassing "hen it coalesces his abstract

consciousness "ith recognisable being$

The ethical relation to becomings through literature are measurable to the e&tent that "e

gift ourselves to the outsie$ Perhaps our coming to Lovecraft can reflect our opening to

the outsie$ Nes( Lovecraft!s are 'horror' stories( but the 6uestion is 'horror of "hatE' or

more precisely: ho" oes negotiating inhuman becomings cause horror affects an "hat

%ubilant becomings-states emerge simultaneouslyE ,hile not "ishing to vinicate

Lovecraft!s prose style( ) propose that his act of "riting may inicate that he is a plane

maker$ Deleuze an Guattari efine a plane thus:

The plane can be a hien principle( "hich makes visible "hat is seen an auible "hat

is hear( etc$( "hich at every instant causes the given to be given( in this or that state( at

this or that moment$ ut the plane itself is not given$ )t is by nature hien$ )t can only

be inferre( inuce( conclue from that to "hich it gives rise$? <The plane> al"ays

concerns the evelopment of forms an the formation of sub%ects$

.TP 2J31

The hien principle( "hich for Lovecraft is his 'cosmic' principle( is hien not in the

sense that it can be reveale$ )ts nature is hien( an to speak of it prouces a gate of

the unsayable that is nonetheless "ritten an spoken( an a gate of the incomprehensible



encountere as a gate of the act of reaing as an act of art$ Lovecraft!s is a language

from the outsie( 'a meticulous narration of e&periences( encounters an improbable

signs( speech about the invisible sie of "ors$? fiction consists not in sho"ing the

invisible( but sho"ing the e&tent to "hich the invisibility of the visible is invisible'

.*oucault 23( 2I1$ *or Lovecraft the cosmos is a principle of organisation through "hich

these intensities( forms( or "hat Deleuze an Guattari call haecceities emerge$ The plane

gives haecceities$ Lovecraft!s stories become most abstract "hen he attempts to

encounter the plane through the e&6uisitely minimal( imperceptible haecceities( but of

course the plane cannot be encountere$ Things emerge through the plane( but the plane

oes not e&ist unto itself$ Deleuze an Guattari say of music that 'there is a transcenent

compositional principle that is not of the nature of soun( that is not !auible! by itself or

for itself$ This opens the "ay for all possible interpretations' .TP 2JJ1$ The horror of

Lovecraft!s cosmos comes because 'it' is not$ Through access to the ifferent

organisational principles of the cosmos( his protagonists are face "ith the truly

voluminous an thus min-shattering infinity of variations an immanent-

interpretations .not reflections1 of states of perception$

The reuction from the perceptible though nonetheless horrific cosmos a cosmos

occupie by monsters reaches its zenith "hen emergences are almost imperceptible

an the self is part of those imperceptibilities$ An e&ample is silence as a vertiginous

'soun':

*or the first time Carter realise ho" terrific utter silence( mental an physical( may be$

The earlier moments ha never faile to contain some perceptible rhythm( if only the

faint( cryptic pulse of the earth!s imensional e&tension$ ut no" the hush of the abyss

seeme to fall upon everything$? ut the moment of silence "as broken the surgings

"ere speaking to him in a language that "as not of physical soun or articulate "ors$

.Lovecraft( TGSK 32I1

The cosmos is not the organising principle of soun$ )nstea( soun is one element of

the real organising principle of Lovecraft!s cosmos( namely( a ne" principle of

conitions of perception that constitute states of .if "e can still call it thus1 'e&istence$'

The unsayable is e&presse in the speech of Lovecraft!s monsters as the souns of

viscous bubblings( "hirrings( chirpings( or the musicality of 5ric ann( "hose 'frantic



playing ha become a mechanical( unrecognisable orgy that no pen coul ever suggest'

.'The Music' @I@1$ The visual( aural( sensorial an affective are non-ifferentiate an

cannot be e&presse$ Lovecraft oes not see this as a problem( ho"ever$ #is

protagonists are horrifie by "hat they cannot escribe( not that they cannot escribe it$

Lovecraft compels an encounter "ith meaning that is not present but al"ays to come( a

"aiting "ithout arriving( so that the time of reaing is one of elay "ithout resolution$

9ust as he cannot speak "hat nonetheless emans to be e&presse( so "e cannot

unerstan "hat is t being e&perience hrough the event of reaing( a voluminous voi(

an abstract materiality$

Cthulhu oes not hunt$ Although she .Cthulhu!s gener is not specifie1 calls to the

Antarctic e&plorers( a key element of the horrors of the 5ler Gos an Ancient 7nes is

not that they pursue mankin but that they are disinterested in them$ lanchot claims

that in pure literature the "riter is haunte by an ineffable image or meaning( that

literature has no relationship "ith anything as a preceing 'before' an is thus incapable

of being a "ork 'about$' )t is( rather( a #are Tenebrarum .sea of arkness1$ The "ork is

al"ays the beyon of itself( labyrinthine( 'this attraction that carries it out to"ar a

point infinitely e&terior <"hich> is the movement that carries it back to"ar the secret of

itself' .lanchot( Boo! ;01$ The secret of literature oes not seek revelation$ The

6uestion it asks cannot be ans"ere: ')t "as from the poets an artists that the pertinent

ans"ers to the 6uestions came( an ) kno" that panic "oul have broken loose'

.Lovecraft( T%% JB1$ )t is a secret that constitutes the "ork$ Along "ith his protagonists(

"e meaner aroun Lovecraft( but his is a labyrinth "ith no centre$ )n his tales(

investigation( corroboration an comparison are al"ays frustrate$ 5ach event of "riting

an speech is incomparable to anything an thus its o"n opening to"ar the beyon of

itself$ The stories are not narratives as they seek no en( the speech silent an unhear because it cannot reveal the solution to the secret of the unsayable$ ',e constantly pass

from orer-"ors to the !silent orer of things!( as *oucault puts it( an vice-versa'

.Deleuze an Guattari( TP B1$ The stories must nonetheless be "ritten an rea$

Deleuze an Guattari point out that content is neither escribe nor limite by

e&pression( but is rather e&pane by e&pression$ Lovecraft!s language encounters the

outsie of material content as e&pression an encounters self as an e&pressive( thus

unspeakable( unspeaking but al"ays e&pressing entity$



Gate (. Beyond the Gates

*oling of esire for monsters is an invaginating turn of the libiinal ban '"here a

secon glance sho"e concavity after the first sho"e conve&ity' .Lovecraft( T%% ;I1$

Leviathan( the supreme emon of The Necronomicon( literally translates as ragon-

serpent from the #ebre" an probably erives etymologically from 'li"yah(' that

"hich gathers itself into fols( t"ists( an turns( an recombines$ ,hen it is

encountere( the s6ui-ragon Cthulhu is 'a arkness "ith a positive 6uality? )t move

anomalously in a iagonal "ay( so that all the rules of matter an perspective seeme

upset' .Lovecraft( T%% ;31$ Pure colour from out of space or colour as phosphorescent

intensity rather than hue4 buzzing( "hirring an recore souns "hich cannot be hear4

an voluminous arkness are Lovecraft!s e&amples of matter that must be perceive

alternately( in ruimentary resonance "ith Deleuze an Guattari!s becoming-colour( -

music( an so forth$ ut "hile these offer lines of flight an alternate tra%ectories( "hat

happens "hen the lines prevent perception through sensorial agitationE ,hat happens

"hen they instea cut along entirely ifferent phyla( "hen physical an perceptive

tra%ectories become gatesE Peaslee!s 'isturbances "ere not visual at all but concerne

more abstract matters' .Lovecraft( TST I1$ Can the protagonists be caught up "ithout

perceptionE

Lovecraft escribes "orls becoming-fol an foling this imension to reassemble all

perception$ 'Lovecraft!s hero encounters strange animals( but he finally reaches the

ultimate regions of a Continuum inhabite by unnameable "aves an unfinable

particles' .Deleuze an Guattari( TP 2IB1$ After loving monsters( Lovecraft!s

protagonists achieve a particle perception( a flattening out of all time an space "here(

instea of the perception of a fol being perspectival for each fol( perception becomes

total an simultaneous$ Cthulhu!s 'nebulously recombining' eventually achieves

'elritch contraictions of all matter( force an cosmic orer' .Lovecraft( T%% ;;( ;1$

'Men think of time only because of "hat they call change( yet that too is an illusion$ All

that "as an is an is to be e&ists simultaneously' .Lovecraft( TGSK 32/1$ The base

istortion of the horizon into no horizon apprehene through any familiar perception

reconfigures all angles of perception$ Those "ho cannot cope become the atrophie

oy "ithout 7rgans( "hile those "ho allo" themselves to issipate into their ream



"orls scatter into particles a schizo-maness$ oies are more than flui( becomings

more than alliances$ The self goes beyon being a point at its limit( as Leibniz claims( to

becoming proliferate points that are not mingle "ith other po"ers but are

simultaneous$ Consciousness .e&ternal apprehension1 an perception .internal

apprehension1 are( furthermore( not simultaneous but non-ifferentiate( as they are

from the consciousness of other particle-entities or forces$ The 5ler Gos are able to

apprehen the infinite past an future in a vague immanence( but this seems more like

an eternal presence than like contraction 'all that "as an is an is to be e&ists

simultaneously' .Lovecraft( TGSK 3@/1$ At the same time( memories that constitute the

past self are ablate an fears of possible futures isappear$ Peaslee!s reams unfol in

non-se6uential se6uence$ Perception is efine as te&ture( an entities as partly matter(

partly something inescribable as matter$ eing '"holly an horribly oriente' causes

Peaslee great trauma until he fins himself 'in <his> conical non-human boy again'

.Lovecraft( TST 3I21$

As a emonic entity( 'the Devil is a transporter' .Deleuze an Guattari( TP 23@1( an the

gates through "hich The 5ler Gos an Ancient 7nes pass are po"erful threshols

catalysing %ourneys( neither seeking nor sealing off( but present in immanent space an

time$ The po"er to act( to enter into relation( the effectuation of foling through

relations of celerity( force an affectuation( is e&tene to a point of pure immanence( a

trembling but not an atrophy$ Demonic invocation( "hich traverses the fish-frog-

"inge-cephalopo( enters through the necronomic gates( oors "hich Deleuze an

Guattari claim are a %ourney$ 8uch %ourneying etermines measure( like the political

tactics of 8pinozan meiative ethics( "ithout nee for referents but using symbols as

variable signs constitute not by signifies but by infinity$ Like Gilman!s pro%ect of

combining physics an mathematics "ith folklore an magick( these symbols are amathematical language$ Guattari!s languages of asemiosis in Soft Subversions 'like

music( painting( mathematics' ./I;1 are separate from signifying systems born of

capital( family( an church because 'the <asemiotic> signifying scrit has not yet ta!en

ossession of the image' ./3/1$ Guattari poses a challenge here because asemiotic

language is a language of liberation( not of #ouellebec6!s nihilism( an it contraicts

#ouellebec6!s claim that Lovecraft "as obsesse "ith the evils of the "orl "hich

inspire his creation of evil interior "orls$ That certain paraigms of moernity(

especially( as #ouellebec6 points out( se& an capitalism( particularly horrifie



Lovecraft oes ho"ever create connections an resonances "ith those systems Guattari

maligns$

)n his tales an The Necronomicon Lovecraft!s system is its o"n hybri of art(

philosophy( an science( so that the symbols are varieties "ithout e&amples( variables of

a process an variants of chaos$ The symbols of The Necronomicon are steps more than

symbols( variations that range to"ar becoming-imperceptible through losing the need

for symbols to be of anything$ They are not e&emplary4 instea of referring to memories

or to futures they refer to a loosening of form( place( state( an belonging$ These

symbols unlock a gate( 'not inee the Fltimate Gate( but one leaing from 5arth an

time to that e&tension of 5arth "hich is outsie time( an from "hich in turn the

Fltimate Gate leas fearsomely an perilously to the Last Hoi "hich is outsie all

earths an all time' .Lovecraft( TGSK 3/J-/1$ The Necronomic symbols e&ten beyon

an incremental %ourney( creating a palimpsest .or a palimpsest( neither increasing nor

ecreasing but converging1 "hich e&tens out to"ar the fifth( si&th an n imensions$

,e can unerstan these imensions( "ith the ai of a hint of "hich Carter receives( as

a plane of consistency .Deleuze an Guattari( TP 23/1$ )n 'Call of Cthulhu' '9ohansen

s"ears he "as s"allo"e up by an angle? an angle "hich "as acute but behave as if

it "ere obtuse' .Lovecraft ;J1$ #is .amittely non-consensual1 pact "ith the emon

Cthulhu is a pact "ith the fourth orer of sorcery( that of creating ne" formations of

imperceptible plane-packs( but at the limit in Lovecraft( these formations are

simultaneously everything an nothing 'abysses? by no means vacant but cro"e'

.Lovecraft( *$H @//1$

Cthulhu calls( but the Ma Arab gives us The Necronomicon to call to the Ancient 7nes(

evincing an irresistible fol of esire alreay mobilise( but seen through a confusion of

forms an 6ualities variants "hich create a esire 'of the sensory( a being of sensation(

on an anorganic plane of composition that is able to restore the infinite' .Deleuze an

Guattari( $hat is Philosohy. 202-20@1$ Michel 8erres claims sense is the only constant

"hen chaos is reeeme from being repetitive isorer to being a limit ./IJ1$ Carter

passes

amist <both through an aroun> backgrouns of other planets an systems an

gala&ies an cosmic continua4 spores of eternal life rifting from "orl to "orl(

universe to universe( yet all e6ually himself? #is self ha been annihilate an yet he



if inee there coul( in vie" of that utter nullity of iniviual e&istence( be such a thing

as he "as e6ually a"are of being in some inconceivable "ay a legion of selves$

.Lovecraft( TTGSK ( 32J-321

The localism of the Carter-facet or Carter-fragment is a variety of esire that e&ploits

the inevitable infinity of esire( but most enigmatically in Lovecraft( that e&ploits esire

for the aberrant in the move to"ar becoming-infinite$ This becoming is not

immortality though$ 9ust as Deleuze an Guattari affirm becoming has neither origin nor

estination( nor even 'an absence of an origin' .TP 2;@1( so Carter!s becoming implies

neither immortality nor lack of immortality$ )n this "ay Lovecraft!s protagonists move

from becomings( to molecular perception( to"ar a state of pure e&istence-perceptionoutsie of both linearity .time1 an aspectival apprehension .space1( a multiple an

infinite unification( becoming-gos as the 5ler Gos( the pure 'one$' Lovecraft

esperately attempts to escribe Carter!s infinity as terrestrialnon-terrestrial(

livingea( many heae( many tentacle( but he cannot escribe it because it is neither

perceivable nor conceivable$ The best "e can have is an encounter "ith the perception

of the imperceptible: the non-binary that Deleuze an Guattari call the Dogon( an that

Lovecraft might have calle the post-Dagon egg$

Deleuze an Guattari tell us that 'minor authors are foreigners in their o"n tongue$ )f

they are bastars( if they e&perience themselves as bastars( it is ue not to a mi&ing or

intermingling of languages but rather to a subtraction an variation of their o"n

language achieve by stretching tensors through it' .TP /031$ The ifficulty in placing

Lovecraft "ithin one .or any1 'appropriate' genre reflects his characters! trauma at

fining they are both bastars "ithout human genealogy an progeny of collective(

unseen( an a-genus monster gos$ )t can be argue that Lovecraft!s literary forefathers(

%ust as his protagonists! outer-imensional ones( are at once alien to him an

unconsciously influential .especially in the case of( for e&ample( Machen1$ Deleuze an

Guattari point out that minor literature can only be foun in "hat cannot be perceive

but "hich can be accesse an encountere "ithin this language$ =osemary 9ackson

argues that Lovecraft!s pro%ect 'makes e&plicit the problem of naming all that is !other!'

.@;1( citing Lovecraft!s claim that ') am not even certain ho" ) am communicating this

message$ ,hile ) kno" ) am speaking( ) have a vague impression that some strange an

perhaps terrible meiation "ill be neee to bear "hat ) say to the points "here ) "ish



to be hear' .6t$ in 9ackson @;-I01$ )nterestingly( 9ackson places the literature of

lanchot an Lovecraft "ithin the same argument( suggesting that Lovecraft coul be

consiere a poststructural as "ell as a fantasy author$ )n minor literature the 'problem'

of naming the other catalyzes a isturbance in language "hich stretches( contracts an

turns the tensors to"ar a minor literature( precisely because the other( so ubi6uitous in

continental philosophy( is the minoritarian$ Minor literature can access the variables an

istributions that are an are cause by the minoritarian 'as a potential( creative an

create( becoming' .Deleuze an Guattari( TP /0J1$ Lovecraft pleas for the reception

of his language as a meiation rather than as a escription$ Deleuze emphasises that

meiation is the point "here truth is insignificant in the face of relevance an necessity

. Negotiations /@01$ #e also "rites that minority iscourse is create by meiators

. Negotiations /2J1( among "hich he inclues both the "riter and the reaer( or

precisely( the encounter an the pursuit$

)t may seem ambitious to suggest that Lovecraft coul be useful for negotiating

problems face by feminism( postcolonialism( an minoritarian tra%ectories of esire$

9ust as Pelagia Goulimari attempts to rescue Deleuze an Guattari!s minoritarian politics

from scathing criticism by certain corporealist feminists( so ) suggest that the event of

encounter "ith Lovecraft!s "ork is neither real nor fantastic( but is its o"n concrete(

abstracting territoriality$ Goulimari says that Deleuze an Guattari!s minoritarian

politics might appear to be 'totalising abstractions' that 'ignore the concrete

particularity of very ifferent territorialities' .//31$ #o"ever( Goulimari argues that

'Particularity manifests itself in action( in the various ma%oritarian an minoritarian

processes at "ork "ithin an bet"een territories$ Particularity itself becomes process

an invention: invention of artificial territorialities an minoritarian becomings' .//31$

Lacking genesis an estination( family an familiarity( Lovecraft!s monsters aresingular particularities( an each emans a mobile encounter that is unlike any other$

7ur encounters "ith Lovecraft!s "orks an "orls are frightening not because of their

population but because of the "ays "e are force to populate the vertiginous vectors

upon "hich they launch the creative act of thinking through reaing$ #orror becomes

ambiguous at best an trite at the "orst4 the political 6uestion is 'of "hat are "e

afraiE' ecoming-minoritarian is frightening$ The final element of becoming is the

encounter "ith the imperceptible but nonetheless so terribly present( from "hich point

"e access the beyon-becoming( the absolute potential "ithout any minoritarian



estination( even though in becoming "e kno" "e "ill never arrive$ 7ur encounter

"ith Lovecraft!s cosmic horror re6uires the ethical turn that becoming re6uires( to be

part of a community that is neither real nor perceptible but that irrefutably an

.irresistibly in reference to the crucial role esire plays in becoming1 becomes our

pack$ Deleuze affirms that '"hether they!re real or imaginary( animate or inanimate( you

have to form your meiators? ) nee my meiators to e&press myself an they! never

e&press "ithout me: you!re al"ays "orking in a group( even "hen you seem to be on

your o"n' . Negotiations /231$ ,hen our pack is efine by movement( 6uality( an the

capacity to perceive their alterity( "e are becoming-minoritarian$ Lovecraft stretches

this limit an fins therein both "oner an horror$ )n our encounter "ith this particular

meiator( "e e&press ourselves as limit-minoritarians4 an through the terrifying

creativity that Lovecraft!s "ork emans of its reaers( "e fin an imminent opening

out$

Patricia MacCormack

Anglia =uskin Fniversity

Patricia$Maccormackanglia$ac$uk

Patricia MacCormack

Patricia MacCormack is =eaer in 5nglish( Communication( *ilm an Meia at Anglia

=uskin Fniversity( Cambrige$ 8he is the author of articles an chapters on Continental

Philosophy( especially Guattari( 8erres( )rigaray( an lanchot( posthuman theory( 6ueer

an perversion theory( animal rights( boy moification an e&treme horror film$ #er

"ork inclues 'Fnnatural Alliances' . *eleu0e and 1ueer Theory1( 'The Great

5phemeral Tattooe 8kin' . Body and Society1( 'ecrose&uality' 21ueering the Non3

Human1( ')nhuman 5cstasy' . Angela!i1( 'ecoming-Hulva' . Ne& /ormations1(

'Cinemasochism' . Afterimage1 an 'Hitalistic *eminethics' . *eleu0e and La&1$ 8he is

the author of %inese)uality .Ashgate 200B1 an co-eitor of The Schi0oanalysis of

%inema .Continuum 200B1$ 8he is currently "riting on posthuman ethics$

)or's *ited

Alhazre( Abul <#$P$ Lovecraft>$ The Necronomicon$ Lonon: Avon( /;;3$ Print$

lanchot( Maurice$ The Boo! to %ome$ Trans$ Charlotte Manell$ 8tanfor: 8tanfor

FP( 200@$ Print$

mailto:[email protected]

https://muse-jhu-edu.ez29.periodicos.capes.gov.br/article/421903#front

mailto:[email protected]

https://muse-jhu-edu.ez29.periodicos.capes.gov.br/article/421903#front



QQQ$ The (nfinite %onversation$ Trans$ 8usan #anson$ Minneapolis: F of Minnesota

P( /;;@$ Print$

raiotti( =osi$ Nomadic Sub4ects$ e" Nork: Columbia FP( /;;I$ Print$

urleson( Donal =$ Lovecraft5 *isturbing the 6niverse$ Le&ington: FP of entucky(

/;;0$ Print$

Carter( Angela$ 'Lovecraft an Lanscape$' The Necronomicon5 The Boo! of *ead Names$ 5$ George #ay$ 9ersey: Corgi( /;B0$ //-/B2$ Print$

Deleuze( Gilles$ *esert (slands and 'ther Te)ts$ Trans$ Mike Taormina$ Los Angeles:

8emiote&t.e1( 200I$ Print$

QQQ$ The /old5 Leibni0 and the Baro,ue$ Trans$ Tom Conley$ Lonon: Athlone(

200/$ Print$

QQQ$ Negotiations$ Trans$ Martin 9oughin$ e" Nork: Columbia FP( /;;3$ Print$

QQQ( an *+li& Guattari$ A Thousand Plateaus$ Trans$ rian Massumi$ Lonon:

Athlone( /;B$ Print$

QQQ$ $hat is Philosohy. Trans$ #ugh Tomlinson an Graham urchell$ e" Nork:

Columbia FP( /;;I$ Print$

*oucault( Michel$ 'Maurice lanchot: Thought from the 7utsie$' Trans$ rianMassumi$ /oucault7Blanchot $ e" Nork: one ooks( /;;$ -J0$ Print$

Goorich( Peter$ 'Mannerism an the Macabre in #$P$ Lovecraft!s Dunsanian !Dream-

Kuest!$' 8ournal of the /antastic in the Arts /3$/ .200I1: @-IB$ Print$

Goulimari( Pelagia$ 'A Minoritarian *eminism: Things to o "ith Deleuze an

Guattari$' Hyatia /I$2 ./;;;1: ;-/20$ ,eb$ /I 9an 20//$

Guattari( *+li&$ Soft Subversions$ Trans$ Davi L$ 8"eet an Chet ,einer$ e" Nork:

8emiote&t.e1( /;;J$ Print$

QQQ$ The Three Ecologies$ Trans$ )an Pinar an Paul 8utton$ Lonon: Athlone(

200I$ Print$

#anegraaff( ,outer 9$ '*iction in the Desert of the =eal: Lovecraft!s Cthulhu Mythos$'

Aries $/ .2001: B3-/0;$ Print$

The Holy Bible5 King 8ames 9ersion$ artleby( 2000$ 20 9an$ 20//$ ,eb$

#ouellebec6( Michel$ H:P: Lovecraft5 Against the $orld5 Against Life$ Trans$ Dorna

hazeni$ Lonon: ,eienfel an icholson( 200J$ Print$

)rigaray( Luce$ An Ethics of Se)ual *ifference$ Trans$ Carolyn urke an Gillian C$ Gill$

)thaca: Cornell FP( /;;@$ Print$

9ackson( =osemary$ /antasy5 The Literature of Subversion$ e" Nork: Methuen( /;B/$

Print$

9oshi( 8$T$ ')ntrouction$' An Eicure in the Terrible5 A %entennial Anthology of Essays

in Honor of H:P Lovecraft $ 5s$ Davi 5$ 8chulz an 8$T$ 9oshi$ Cranbury( 9:

Associate F Presses( /;;/$ /3-II$ Print$risteva( 9ulia$ *esire in Language$ Trans$ Thomas Gora( Alice 9arine an Leon 8$

=ouiez$ 7&for: lack"ell( /;B0$ Print$

Leibniz( Gottfrie ,ilhelm$ Philosohical $ritings$ Trans$ Mary Morris an G$#$=$

Parkinson$ Hermont: 5veryman( /;;3$ Print$

L+vy( Maurice$ Lovecraft5 A Study in the /antastic$ Detroit: ,ayne 8tate FP( /;BB$

Print$

Lovecraft( #$P$ 'Azathoth$' The Ancient Trac!5 The %omlete Poetical $or!s of H:P:

Lovecraft $ 8an *rancisco: ightshae ooks( 200/$ @$ Print$

QQQ$ 'eyon the ,all of 8leep$' H:P: Lovecraft 'mnibus ;$ Lonon: Grafton(

/;B;$ @J-IB$ Print$

QQQ$ 'The Call of Cthulhu$' H:P: Lovecraft 'mnibus <$ Lonon: Grafton( /;B;$ J/-;B$ Print$



QQQ$ 'The Case of Charles De&ter ,ar$' H:P: Lovecraft 'mnibus =$ Lonon:

Hoyager( /;;;$ /I/-@02$ Print$

QQQ$ 'The Colour 7ut of 8pace$' H:P: Lovecraft 'mnibus <$ Lonon4 Grafton( /;B;$

2@J-2/$ Print$

QQQ$ 'Dagon$' H:P: Lovecraft 'mnibus ;$ Lonon: Grafton( /;B3$ //-/$ Print$

QQQ$ 'The Dreams in the ,itch-#ouse$' H:P: Lovecraft 'mnibus =$ Lonon:Hoyager( /;;;$ @0@-@30$ Print$

QQQ$ 'The Dream-Kuest of Fnkno"n aath$' H:P: Lovecraft 'mnibus =$ Lonon:

Hoyager( /;;;$ @J/-IBJ$ Print$

QQQ$ 'The Dun"ich #orror$' H:P: Lovecraft 'mnibus <$ Lonon: Grafton( /;B;$ ;;-

/3@$ Print$

QQQ$ 'The Music of 5ric ann$' H:P: Lovecraft 'mnibus <$ Lonon: Grafton( /;B;$

@@3-@I3$ Print$

QQQ$ 'The ameless City$' H:P: Lovecraft 'mnibus ;$ Lonon: Grafton( /;B3$ /2;-

/I@$ Print$

QQQ$ 'yarlathotep$' The Ancient Trac!5 The %omlete Poetical $or!s of H:P:

Lovecraft $ 8an *rancisco: ightshae ooks( 200/$ 2-@$ Print$ QQQ$ 'The 8hao" out of Time$' H:P: Lovecraft 'mnibus <$ Lonon: Grafton( /;B;$

IJI-3II$ Print$

QQQ$ 'The 8hao" over )nnsmouth$' H:P: Lovecraft 'mnibus <$ Lonon: Grafton(

/;B;$ @B2-IJ@$ Print$

QQQ$ Suernatural Horror in Literature$ e" Nork: Dover( /;@$ Print$

QQQ$ 'Through the Gates of the 8ilver ey$' H:P: Lovecraft 'mnibus =$ Lonon:

Hoyager( /;;;$ Print$

QQQ$ 'The Fnnamable' H:P: Lovecraft 'mnibus ;$ Lonon: Grafton( /;B3$ 223-2@3$

Print$

Lyotar( 9ean-*ranRois$ The (nhuman$ Trans$ Geoffrey ennington an =achel o"lby$

Cambrige: Polity( /;;/$ Print$

MacCormack( Patricia$ 'aro6ue )ntensity: Lovecraft( Le*anu an The *ol$' (rish

8ournal of Gothic and Horror Studies 2 .March 2001$ ,eb$ /I 9an 20//$

QQQ$ 'Fnnatural Alliances$' *eleu0e and 1ueer Theory$ 5s$ Chrysanthi igiani an

Merl 8torr$ 5inburgh: 5inburgh FP( 200;$ /@I-/I;$ Print$

Machen( Arthur$ 'A *ragment of Life$' The Novel of the $hite Po&der and 'ther

Stories of Horror and the Suernatural $ Lonon: Corgi( /;J3$ 2-/0I$ Print$

Pasi( Marco$ 'Arthur Machen!s Panic *ears: ,estern 5sotericism an the )rruption of

egative 5pistemology$' Aries $/ .2001: J@-B@$ ,eb$ /I 9an 20//$

=alickas( Hivian$ '!Cosmic #orror! an the Kuestion of the 8ublime in Lovecraft$'

8ournal of the /antastic in the Arts /B$@ .2001: @JI-@;B$ Print$=anciOre( 9ac6ues$ The /uture of the (mage$ Trans$ Gregory 5lliot$ Lonon: Herso(

200$ Print$

8erres( Michel$ The Birth of Physics$ Trans$ 9ack #a"kes$ Manchester: Clinamen( 2000$

Print$

8iegel( Carol$ Goth"s *ar! Emire$ )nianapolis: )niana FP( 2003$ Print$

,ilson( Colin$ The Strength to *ream5 Literature and (magination$ Lonon: Abacus(

/;J/$ Print$

Documents

Lovecraft Through Deleuzio-Guattarian Gates - Patricia MacCormack