“The Dreams in the Witch House” is a bad story. And yet…

Hardly anybody likes H.P. Lovecraft’s short story The Dreams in the Witch House. Even H.P. Lovecraft didn’t like it, and subsequent readers have generally considered it one of his worst.

And, by pretty much any objective measure, it’s  a bad story. For one thing, there’s no surprise or subtlety to it—Lovecraft beats the reader over the head with the legend of Keziah Mason, and her rat-like familiar, Brown Jenkin. I think he was trying for ambiguity, but he was failing spectacularly at it. Walter Gilman, the doomed protagonist of the tale, should be able to see what’s coming a mile away; the reader certainly can. 

In a good weird tale, there should be some question as to whether the supernatural doings are real, or simply a hallucination by the protagonist. Lovecraft was trying to do this, but he didn’t. The evidence favoring the supernatural explanation is simply overwhelming. And needlessly drawn out. When an author tells you on page one that a witch and a rat-like monster are up to no good, the final page should contain a bigger pay-off than “a witch and a rat-like monster were up to no good.”

Lovecraft, I’ve come to realize, had no idea how to hint or imply something. This is a problem when writing horror, because it is a genre that depends heavily on subtle hinting. And Lovecraft kind of knew this, but he couldn’t do it. So what he would do instead is write this:

“Eventually there had been a hint of vast, leaping shadows, of a monstrous, half-acoustic pulsing, and of the thin, monotonous piping of an unseen flute—but that was all. Gilman decided he had picked up that last conception from what he had read in the Necronomicon about the mindless entity Azathoth, which rules all time and space from a black throne at the centre of Chaos.”

He seems to have believed that by prefacing an outright statement with “A hint of…” that it would count as an actual hint.

Also, there are a number of lines that just sound downright silly. Like:

“What made the students shake their heads was his sober theory that a man might—given mathematical knowledge admittedly beyond all likelihood of human acquirement—step deliberately from the earth to any other celestial body which might lie at one of an infinity of specific points in the cosmic pattern.

Such a step, he said, would require only two stages; first, a passage out of the three-dimensional sphere we know, and second, a passage back to the three-dimensional sphere at another point, perhaps one of infinite remoteness.”

It sounds so easy! And then we have this masterful bit of understatement:

“May Eve was Walpurgis Night, when hell’s blackest evil roamed the earth and all the slaves of Satan gathered for nameless rites and deeds. It was always a very bad time in Arkham…”

In addition to these technical flaws, Witch House is one of Lovecraft’s nastiest tales. The sacrifice scene at the end is grotesque, and of course, it wouldn’t be Lovecraft without casual racial bigotry. What’s truly odd is that Lovecraft creates a story in which the poor, un-educated, and superstitious immigrants are clearly right in their beliefs, and the WASP upper-class is demonstrably wrong, and yet Lovecraft likes the WASPs better anyway.

It’s a badly-constructed, badly-written, and badly-paced tale, with a heavy emphasis on gore and none of the subtlety that Lovecraft at his best was capable of. And it comes with a side-serving of class arrogance and racial hatred. (BTW, I am a descendant of Eastern-European immigrants to the northeast United States, rather like the ones Lovecraft treats with utter contempt in this tale. Who are you calling “clod-like,” HPL?)

So, why do I re-read this horrible little tale every April?

Part of it is, I read it for the first time as a college student during spring term, and so I had some instant sympathy for poor Walter Gilman. Studying for exams is stressful enough without being abducted by long-dead witches and taken into other dimensions.

Also, Gilman is, in his own way, kind of heroic. He does ultimately fight back against the evil cosmic forces, and to some extent succeeds in thwarting them—even if it doesn’t work out well for him. Unusually for a Lovecraft character, he doesn’t just observe the horror and go mad, but takes some sort of corrective action. I kind of like that, even though the scene itself is six different kinds of ugly. (Also: why does the witch recoil from the crucifix? Oops, did someone have to undercut his entire atheistic literary philosophy in order to make his plot resolve itself?) 

And finally, this book introduced me to Walpurgis Night, which is a great way for a Halloween-obsessed lunatic such as myself to get a mid-year fix. It’s not the really strong stuff, but it can keep me going for those long six months.

In his essay Good Bad Books, George Orwell defined same as “The kind of book that has no literary pretensions but which remains readable when more serious productions have perished… They form pleasant patches in one’s memory, quiet corners where the mind can browse at odd moments, but they hardly pretend to have anything to do with real life.”

This is what Lovecraft and a lot of the “pulp” writers of the era were doing. There aren’t any pretensions about these kinds of stories. (Indeed, since Lovecraft never intended to publish Witch House, he had no reason to be pretentious.) 

That’s probably why stories like Witch House, that suck by standard measures, still have this quality of being re-readable. They’re authentic—when you read Lovecraft, you’re not getting what editors and publishers thought was a good book. You’re getting undiluted “Yog-Sothothery,” as Lovecraft called his peculiar style, straight from the bottle. 

It’s almost like Lovecraft, in spite of his prejudices and unwillingness to curb his own bad writing habits, was able to tap in to some core principles that make for a good horror story.

Describing Keziah Mason, Lovecraft wrote:

[S]ome circumstance had more or less suddenly given a mediocre old woman of the Seventeenth Century an insight into mathematical depths perhaps beyond the utmost modern delvings of Planck, Heisenberg, Einstein, and de Sitter.

Similarly, it seems as if some circumstance gave a mediocre man of the 20th century an insight into writing horror that is perhaps beyond many modern practitioners of the genre.

This is just a video of a bonfire I had on April 30 a couple years ago. Not really related, but do you know how hard it is to find free images associated with Walpurgis Night?


  1. This story isn’t among my favourites from HPL, but it does have some positives. The atmosphere of Arkham and the configuration of Gilman’s room in the Witch House are rendered well. Maybe HPL didn’t balance the supernatural vs. rational aspects, but it’s clear that Gilman represents the scientific, rational outlook and the inhabitants of the Witch House the ignorant and superstitious. As you point out, those clod-like dudes have it right. Gilman’s insistence on interpreting everything rationally is his downfall. Sort of like Herbert West, except Gilman is a passive victim. Stuff just happens to him. I actually was sufficiently taken by the basic situation to write a beginning for what was intended to be a fleshing out of this story (like Friendship of Mortals), but it fizzled out. I realized I didn’t want to deal with all the grisly stuff. The idea of that oddly shaped room being a portal into another dimension interested me. The personality dynamic between Gilman and the other characters interested me. But human sacrifice and Brown Jenkin put me off the whole thing. Which is probably just as well. That aborted beginning can be found on my blog, though, under Short Stories.

    1. I am so reading your story as soon as I finish typing this! I agree (and this I think is true of a lot of HPL’s stories) that the atmosphere and concepts are well done. It’s just… sometimes he would make storytelling choices that hamstrung his own ideas.

    2. I read “Welcome to the Witch House”, and I loved it. I think it will change the way I read “Dreams in the Witch-House” from now on.

      For some reason, I can’t “like” the post on your blog. Not sure why. But I do like it, very much. 🙂

      1. Thanks, Berthold. I re-read it yesterday and noticed I had both characters making disparaging comments about “foreigners.” I guess I was really channeling HPL, but thought I might have overdone it. Glad you liked it. (At least one other WP blogger has mentioned they couldn’t “like” a post. I had that problem a few months ago and found that refreshing the page fixed it. No idea what caused it, though).

  2. I bought a book with all lovecraft works. I don’t think I got very far. Not sure why because I love horror tales.

    1. Most of Lovecraft’s stories are, in my opinion, not very scary. A few that I liked: “The Music of Erich Zann,” “The Haunter of the Dark,” and parts of “At The Mountains of Madness.” Most of the others are kind of lame, and rather offensive to boot.

      But there are a number of authors who took Lovecraft’s best ideas and adapted them into far better tales. (Including Audrey Driscoll–see her comment on this post, and her site here: https://audreydriscoll.com.) I highly recommend her work.

        1. Yay! Her blog is wonderful; I’ve been following for a while now and she always posts about such interesting topics.

Leave a Reply to MaggieCancel reply