This event began 02/14/2026 and repeats every year forever
Is the loch narr lovecraftian?
My answer
challenging question, the problem in modernity with lovecraft is his name has become synonomous with any literature or illustration that depicts, a potent or omnipotent god that may act negatively but more importantly has mystery to them. ala Cthulu. If you consider Zorastrianism, where the most potent divine is deemed a double natured god, then loveraft merely mirrored zorastrianism's god, which is from the distant antiquity. If you look at the hindu religion. It has more branches than christianity while never had a schism. What is my point? in hinduism, the divine, the brahman, is left to interpretation. A hindu can be a monotheist and another hindu a polytheist and both ways are not deemed correct or incorrect, but it is up to each individual to follow those ways. The responsibility is the adherent. The Brahman is functionally, from a christian historical lens, the interpretation of christ by the gnostics, whose main argument is that god/brahmin/similar names for divine nature can not be known, only interpreted. What does this have to do with Lovecraft? Lovecraft's gods or worldbuilding, shows entities that aren't confusing if your used to a hindu or gnostic christian approach to spirituality or religion. So, Loch Narr is arguably, hindu or gnostic as well as zoarastrian in reference, and all three of those heritages are older than lovecraft. I imagine he knew of all three. So challenging question. The simple answer is yes, because the Loch Narr has elements of characterizations in Lovecraft literature. The more even answer is, it comes from a longer tradition of complex divine beings
exactly, being commonly known has value. Lovecraft achieved that in his time. Look at Robert E Howard or Phillip k dick, the quaity in their writing was quality before comic books/films but it was wehn frazetta inked a comic book that conan grew in the common knowledge and then a little brilliant film by milius was made, and conan has made money howard could only dream of. Dick's works were always brilliants, but it took a little movie from ridley scott to expose the trasure trove and the rest is history. Dick's stories have made post mortem a ton of money. So, being commonly known as an artist has value. the envious artist calling it selling out, the honest artist call it luck. .... to ponzi your correct , the label ponzi scheme has become the wish of many people who invested poorly and want some way to reclaim. ... yeah personal accountability is a way to look at it, though, if i owned a media outlet, i would want what is communicated through my outlet to be honest, precise in wording. part of lovecratian and ponzi scheme is how often media uses terms uncaringly, not just poorly, but uncaringly, which demands the viewers be accountable to what media says, to rewrite, many media outlets don't act like they care they are trusted or want to be trusted but many viewers place levels of trust. so media can argue viewers need to be personally accountable, which is the truth but firms have to also be labeled low quality. I didn't say firms have to be accountable but firms , especially media ones need to be labeled + accept being labeled as low quality when they simply are. Twitter/ CNBC/FOx NEws/ Youtube are all low quality media outlets while the most viewed. I know freedom of the press or speech means they can't be blocked and it is up to citizens/viewers to reject them or accept them, but I think a label of low quality is warranted.
