“…I
would have made your flattened, punctured fragments immortal!”
The
replacement of a live human being with a wax or clay effigy, so lifelike that it
seems like the real person, has been a staple in horror entertainment for a
long time. A maniacal artist, often grandiose,
aggrieved, or humiliated by his peers, works marvels in sculpting accurate
replicas of individuals recently gone missing.
The horrible punch line of course is that the sculpture is not a replica
at all. The artist turns out to be not
so much a talented sculptor as a skilled taxidermist. Or perhaps, waxidermist.
Readers
may recall such classic films as Mystery
of the Wax Museum (1933)—“Images of wax that throbbed with human passion!”—and
House of Wax (1953), with Vincent
Price as the vengeful owner of an incinerated wax museum. In Roger Corman’s classic Bucket of Blood (1959) the artist works
in clay instead of wax, using a creative process that involves the exsanguination of his victims before they
are immortalized in plaster. Corman’s
film manages to be quite funny and satirical in some scenes, despite the
appalling subject.
An
earlier version of this theme can be found in H.P. Lovecraft’s collaboration
with Hazel Heald, The Horror in the Museum,
(1932), which may have been inspired in part by A.M. Burrage’s The Waxwork (1931). There are similarities in the plot of both
stories, though conceivably they are both derived from an earlier source. Lovecraft offers a variation on this theme;
the waxen effigies are of nonhuman
models, and humans are not rendered lifelike so much as spectacularly deadlike.
The
Lovecraft-Heald work is interesting because it contains elements that were
developed in other Lovecraft stories and collaborations. Readers familiar with Lovecraft’s work will
find echoes of At the Mountains of
Madness (1936)—a polar expedition to an archaeological site is described—and
The Mound (1930), with its imagery of
dismemberment and physical disfigurement.
Various members of the Cthulhu Mythos are listed, along with familiar unpronounceable
interjections like “Ei! Ei! Ei!” and “Iä! Iä! Iä!” There is also reference to the well-known bibliography
of doom: the Necronomicon, the Book of Eibon, and the Unaussprechlichen Kulten of von Junzt.
Little
is known about Hazel Heald. De Camp
comments that she was “a stout, auburn-haired divorcée” from Somerville, Massachusetts. Joshi notes that she published just five
stories, all of them revised or ghostwritten by Lovecraft, probably in 1932 or
1933. (See also A Small Town Horror.) In his view, these revisions were
closer to original creations by Lovecraft than mere editing would have
produced. Of The Horror in the Museum, Joshi writes: “I fervently hope that “The Horror in the Museum”
is a conscious parody—in this case, a parody of Lovecraft’s own myth cycle.”
Near the
beginning of The Horror in the Museum,
Stephen Jones is challenged by George Rogers, the owner of a gruesome wax museum,
to spend the night in his establishment.
Jones agrees, if only to prove to Rogers that his “effigies are just
effigies” and on the condition that Rogers destroys his latest sculpture—which is
kept in the “adults only” section of the museum, behind a padlocked door. Rogers is a gifted artist who over time has
boasted of collecting “certain things in Nature that no one had found before”
during his far flung travels. Jones is
mostly concerned about his friend’s deteriorating mental health, and resolves
to sleep among Roger’s grotesque creations.
This
is after he helps Rogers dispose of
an oddly exsanguinated and flattened dog, listens to Rogers’ story of his
eldritch adventures in a remote Alaskan archaeological dig, and is provided an
overview of Roger’s peculiar theology and religious practices. But this sets the stage for the most
entertaining part of the story, which is Jones’ long nerve wracking night in
the museum. There is some genuine
creepiness here. Readers will know there
is something behind that padlocked
door. Why go to the trouble to lock up a
wax effigy?
The
theology is bizarre and not a little confused.
Clearly idolatry is in view,
and one suspects a biblical source as the inspiration for the mad artist’s frequently
repeated line: “for the blood is the life”.
It is probably from the Old Testament book of Leviticus, chapter 17,
verse 11: “For the life of the creature
is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on
the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.” This chapter deals extensively with the
prohibition against eating blood and sacrificing to idols—the primary focus of The Horror in the Museum. For all his official atheism and materialism,
Lovecraft still relied on religious understandings as source material for a lot
of his ideas. (See H.P.
Lovecraft Goes to Church.)
Rogers
refers to his newest creation as “It”. “It”
is a god, and he is Its high priest.
Furthermore, worship essentially consists of feeding “It”. But readers may not easily understand Rogers’
motivation. Does he want to be taken more
seriously? Does he want to become all powerful
through the intervention of his god? But
what kind of deity can be subdued behind a locked door? Or needs a human to feed it in order to
escape starvation? This is reminiscent of
another biblical passage, this one from Psalm 135, verse 15:
The
idols of the nations are silver and gold
Made
by the hands of men.
They
have mouths, but cannot speak;
Eyes,
but they cannot see;
They
have ears, but cannot hear,
Nor
is their breath in their mouths.
But
those who make them will be like them,
And
so will all who trust in them.
Something
like this happens to Rogers, the would-be leader of a new and barbaric
religion. Orobona, the artist’s “dark,
foreign-looking assistant”, (i.e. the inscrutable ethnic henchman—a stock
character in this literature), smiles knowingly at his master’s demise. This occurs not long after an over the top
monologue that will remind readers of countless rantings of mad scientists over
the years. In a climactic scene Jones
sensibly declines an offer from Rogers: “I
would have made your flattened, punctured fragments immortal.” Jones is unimpressed —alas, a missed
opportunity for fame.
With
respect to monsterology, the creature that shambles through The Horror in the Museum is much less
amorphous than many of Lovecraft’s creatures, and easier to visualize in terms
of appearance and action. “It” occupies
space as a physically threatening predator.
Whether an ethereal, indeterminate horror is more effective than a
realistically defined one may the topic of future discussion.