In what a trouble of classics who stand at the origins of a genre? The trouble is that classics created the works during absolutely other era. And when the modern reader a sort from the 21st century decides to join classics of a genre and, with bated breath, Mary Shelley opens, for example, “Frankenstein”, wishing to see a heap of all that saw on the screen, and he receives only a dose of indistinct reasonings of the doctor about that there, how awfully he has arrived…
We will softly tell, there is a dissonance between expectations and the received result. I won’t tell what with Lovecraft has turned out also. Dagon in itself – the short story. But, despite it, in the final Lovecraft leaves the choice for the reader. Whether the main character on the sun перепекся, and from it he began rigid glitches, whether he has really seen something, risen from the sea abyss.
Here the choice for you. But the fact that it was Dagon the tiny story and has confused. And knowing background that Dagon has dreamed Lovecraft, as well as practically all his other monsters, you begin to perceive this as retelling of a dream. And it would be possible to write more details there. And for some reason it isn’t believed that Dagon’s type has actually brought together the unfortunate sufferer who has escaped from captivity of Germans, from mind. The author suggests to choose to the reader the background of this story – either mystical character, or banal prosaic. The Atmosfernost of all story perfectly gives feeling of hopelessness, and the ending looks quite logical and natural. For some concrete judgment of creativity of the author the story is too short, but definitely there was a wish to read something else at Lavkravt.