7

In the first chapter of At The Mountains of Madness I read

the peak of Mt. Nansen in the eastern distance, towering up to its height of almost fifteen thousand feet.

Isn't that height plainly exaggerated?

Buzz
  • 97,359
  • 18
  • 292
  • 479
Enlico
  • 1,355
  • 1
  • 9
  • 19
  • 22
    There are other elements in this story that are also marginally fantastical – Valorum Nov 28 '20 at 17:58
  • 4
    I expected the fantastic part not to change what has already been given a name in reality – Enlico Nov 28 '20 at 18:00
  • 2
    This range of mountains also contains individual peaks that are higher than Everest by 6000 feet. Since this story is set in a fictionalised version of our reality, there's no good reason that a specific mountain should be the same height as it is in real life. – Valorum Nov 28 '20 at 18:04
  • 1
    @Enrico - if you havent seen them already check out the new illustrated versions of 'The Call of Cthulhu' and 'At the Mountains of Madness' illustrated by François Baranger = awesome!! – wcullen Nov 28 '20 at 23:07
  • @wcullen, I think I've found them on Amazon. I guess the figures are not available online, are they? :P – Enlico Nov 29 '20 at 05:49
  • @Enrico: 'The Call of Cthulhu' one is available here: https://www.amazon.ca/CALL-CTHULHU-H-P-Lovecraft/dp/1624650449/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=François+Baranger&qid=1606683745&sr=8-3 – wcullen Nov 29 '20 at 21:03
  • @Enrico: 'At the Mountains of Madness' here: https://www.amazon.ca/At-Mountains-Madness-H-Lovecraft/dp/1624650082/ref=sr_1_14?dchild=1&keywords=François+Baranger&qid=1606683799&sr=8-14 – wcullen Nov 29 '20 at 21:03
  • 1
    @Enrico: both I linked are the English language versions. The French come out prior. – wcullen Nov 29 '20 at 21:04

1 Answers1

19

It is believed he is referring to Mount Fridtjof Nansen in the Antarctica (13,350ft).

This is noted in The New Annotated H.P. Lovecraft edited by Leslie Klinger--see footnote #23

wcullen
  • 2,421
  • 11
  • 23
  • And the other mountains in the range that are taller than Everest? – Valorum Nov 28 '20 at 18:50
  • 2
    @Valorum The question and response are referring to the uses in Lovecraft's fiction (although Mount Fridtjof Nansen is 13, 350ft). Safe to say Lovecraft uses some poetic license :-) – wcullen Nov 28 '20 at 18:52
  • This feels like a retcon – Valorum Nov 28 '20 at 23:31
  • @Valorum: Meh, if that's what the annotated edition says (I can't read it), then I'm inclined to say this is a valid answer even if it isn't terribly satisfying. You'll get similar responses if you try to ask how a raven is like a writing desk (which I believe we've discussed here before...). – Kevin Nov 29 '20 at 02:37
  • 12
    It might surprise you to learn that in 1931, not every mountain in Antarctica was known, and even of the known peaks, their correct heights were not necessarily well known and the best estimates were not always correct. This left a lot of room for authors to choose among different guesses, or just add their own. – RBarryYoung Nov 29 '20 at 03:17
  • 3
    Long story short, it’s very likely that Lovecraft just got the two Mt. Nansens mixed up, used currently available inaccurate estimates of its height, and for the “taller than Everest” peaks, just used his own speculations about as yet unknown or unmeasured mountains in Antarctica. No retconning necessary. – RBarryYoung Nov 29 '20 at 03:25
  • @RBarryYoung - Given that Lovecraft invented an entire mountain range with peaks larger than Everest, it's far more likely that they were well aware of the relative height of Mt Nansen and just used the name because of the recognition value. – Valorum Nov 29 '20 at 09:04
  • 1
    I was disappointed when I learned that humanity never really found an Elder City in an unknown Antarctic mountain range that then had to be nuked and explained to the proletariat as an underground test gone wrong – David Tonhofer Nov 29 '20 at 13:42
  • 3
    @Valorum That doesn’t seem likely at all. For one thing Mt. Nansen had even less recognition value in 1931 than it does today. For another, much of Antarctica was unexplored and even more unknown to the general public, so of necessity, any story set in Antarctica had to invent some geography. Postulating retconning just doesn’t pass Occam’s Razor. – RBarryYoung Nov 29 '20 at 16:05
  • @RBarryYoung - Hmm. We have two significant choices. One, Lovecraft named his mountain after a similar-sounding mountain (but not one that is the same height that he mentioned) or two, that he named it after the one that he intended but changed its height to fit his fictional universe. Occam's razor would imply that the second choice is the correct choice (or at least the more likely) because the first option requires you to being a new postulate into the equation. – Valorum Nov 29 '20 at 16:15
  • 3
    @Valorum Your reasoning is fallacious because you continue to assume the Lovecraft had the same information that we have today, which has no basis and is contradicted by history. – RBarryYoung Nov 29 '20 at 16:39
  • 3
    I think it's clear from the text that it must be what we now know as Mt. Fridtjof Nansen - this is in the Queen Maud range, dividing the Ross Shelf from the Plateau, and the narrative talks about them seeing it after reaching that point heading inland. The other Mt Nansen is way off to the west of the Ross Sea, ten degrees to the north. Presumably he picked the name off a map as being in the right place and worked from there. – Andrew is gone Nov 29 '20 at 16:39
  • 6
    Interestingly, Amundsen originally estimated it as around 15,000 feet, so Lovecraft was probably quoting an up-to-date figure here. It probably wouldn't have been resurveyed until the 1940s/50s. – Andrew is gone Nov 29 '20 at 16:47
  • @Andrew - That would make a superior answer to this one, or rather a superior source. – Valorum Nov 29 '20 at 16:50