me gusto aunque dejaba de prestar atencion algunas veces pero me dio ganas de leer los libros que mencionó

It's mostly Lovecraft providing plot synopses to old weird fiction stories. There's little historical investigation into the material or ideological contexts that drove their production, nor their shifts in style, theme, or focus. Nice place to plumb Lovecraft's library, but unremarkable as scholarship on the weird; well, except for understanding how Lovecraft constructed a canon of weird fiction.

His most noteworthy contribution is his definition of the "[t]rue weird tale" as

something more than secret murder, bloody bones, or a sheeted form clanking chains according to rule. A certain atmosphere of breathless and unexplainable dread of outer, unknown forces must be present; and there must be a hint, expressed with a seriousness and portentousness becoming its subject, of that most terrible conception of the human brain — a malign and particular suspension or defeat of those fixed laws of Nature which are our only safeguard against the assaults of chaos and the daemons of unplumbed space.

Here, he distinguishes the weird from the Gothic on a categorical level. The Gothic, as "secret murder, bloody bones, or a sheeted form", is an iconography whose repeated forms have rigidified into a "rule". In contrast, the weird is an "atmosphere" — an affective "dread" that destabilises one's foundation for truth. Where the Gothic is a particular set of props, the weird is a particular use of props.

Consequently, the weird shouldn't be thought of as a genre that blurs fantasy, horror, and science fiction, but rather, a literary mode that emerges across genres, but is especially prevalent in Gothic horror. The weird is the production of sensations, such as paranoia or dread, in the reader, from their encounters with incomprehensible mysteries or beings, as inscribed by the author. Joshi remarks, that these moments are intended to not only refashion the viewpoint of the protagonists of weird fiction, but also, the readers of weird fiction. Functionally, then, the weird produces an epistemological break — a breakdown of the rational unto terror.

There are issues with this. Not all weird fiction authors stress terror. Algernon Blackwood's works are characterised by a contradictory desire between retreat and embrace of the weird; between the poles of remaining human and becoming posthuman. Lord Dunsany's worlds are gleefully macabre, whimsical, and nihilistic, but never terrifying. These authors are weird because they produce a tension between multiple interpretations, sensations, and desires, which cannot be reconciled into one rational system — the ego of Enlightenment thought. While Lovecraft is right, that the weird is the breakdown of "those fixed laws of Nature" we hold in our minds, this breakdown does not always lead to terror. "[C]haos and the daemons of unplumbed space" can be embraced as a new becoming, or a oneness beyond the neurosis and isolation of the ego.

Fuck fear, eat acid, become god — and so on and so on.