Comments on "The Lazarus Man"

While I agree that Mr. Owston's "Lazarus Man" is far from canonical, it does raise some interesting points, not least: why is there no religion in "The Night Land"? There is archaeological evidence humans have engaged in some form of worship for at least hundreds of thousands of years. Faith has also proved persistent in the face of the most appalling suppression - as the history of the Jewish faith demonstrates.

For me, the key reason why "Lazarus Man" isn't part of the canon is that it seems to be happening too close in time to the present day. WHH emphasised the vast gulfs of time that exist in his novel, and I find it hard to believe that HP Lovecraft and Poe will still be remembered in 12 million (or whatever) years time - or any other writer from our time. By the time that the events of "The Night Land" take place, our time is likely not even to be a myth. As evidence for this I would cite that "The Night Land", so far as I can recall, only mentions one character by name, and specifies only one other individual "The Great Leader" -- mentioned in chapter 6.

I thought that the "Chthulu Mythos" didn't really work in this context (and I'm speaking a s a long-term HPL fan). Despite August Derleth's efforts, the Mythos, like "The Night Land", is happening in a place outside the Christian myth. As such it seemed a bit "bolted on".

Religion is, as noted earlier, persistent. And one of the most persistent myths is that of the mysterious, peripatetic prophet, who has perhaps risen from the dead. This seems to me an attractive idea for a writer, opening up many possibilities for dealing with the vast scale of events in "The Night Land". Memo to self - must think about this.

Overall, I thought Mr Owston's play was an interesting and original way of approaching "The Night Land". I would suggest that it might be a good idea if he included a dramatis personae at the beginning.