I love this tongue in cheek description of Lovecraft

from the New York Review of Books:
...he was a nerd. He was a nerd on a grand scale, though— a heroic nerd, a pallid, translucent, Mallarméan nerd, a nerd who suffered for his art. His art consisted exclusively of conveying horror, and in this his range was encyclopedic. As a setting for his horror he built a whole world—a whole universe, with a time-span measured in eons...

The rest of the article is pleasingly penetrating and accurate. Years of fine Lovecraftian scholarship from the likes of Joshi, Mosig, Cannon and Faig have paid off.

And the writer's thoughts on Lovecraftian film is spot on:
...there have been around fifty film and television adaptations, although hardly any of these have been more than superficially related to their sources. There is a reason for that superficiality. Lovecraft's work is essentially unfilmable, not because his special effects are too gaudy or too expensive to translate to the screen, but because they are purely literary.