Without going into any sort of nominations, I would be interested in hearing forum commentators explain their choices for the one (no "ties" please) all-time finest macabre/weird short story or novelette ever written. I think it's "The Death of Halpin Frayser" by Ambrose Bierce. More than any other author's masterpiece one might select, Bierce's can be endlessly reread with undiminished appreciation. It has the strongest opening, a masterfully descriptive treatment of landscape and weather, a shifting psychological narrative technique, and stark physical horror, with the greater horror left to the reader's imagination as in the best of Arthur Machen. --"I would say that he who has any traffic with the affairs of the imagination has found out all the wisdom that he will ever know, in this life at all events, by the age of eighteen or thereabouts"-- Machen, "Far Off Things"

jkh

Machen's "The White People" is my choice for the greatest weird tale in English. It is one of the very few weird tales that really has "creeped me out." Its lonely landscapes have permanently affected my imagination. Its folkloric and antiquarian aspect is haunting. I don't entirely like it.

I don't have time for a thorough commentary on it. I think it is susceptible of a Christian interpretation. It reminds me of Tolkien's late story of about the same length, Smith of Wootton Major. It is an eerie story; then a shocking one; finally, a sad and sobering one.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 27 Oct 20 | 01:18PM by Dale Nelson.

"The Shadow Over Innsmouth". Not consistently, but at its best moments it gets me completely convinced in its vision. And it has the greatest and most beautiful ending of any story I have read, with a complete surrender to the weird.

I have tried to ask myself the question several times before but the answer is it is absolutely impossible for me to name just one story. There is a bunch of tales I have a soft spot for ("Horla", "At The Mountains of Madness", "The Derelict", "The People of The Pit", "The Willows", "The Novel of The Black Seal", "The House of Sounds", "The Wind In The Portico", "Genius Loci", "All Hallows", "The Spider" etc, etc.) but I am unable to say if this one is better than that one.

Minicthulhu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have tried to ask myself the question several
> times before but the answer is it is absolutely
> impossible for me to name just one story. There is
> a bunch of tales I have a soft spot for but I am unable
> to say if this one is better than that one.

How about favorite one, rather than best one? That is probably easier. The story that most frequently comes back in memory, and persistently knocks on the inner door of exalted curiosity.

"The White People" by Arthur Machen is my favorite.

While other stories tell the reader about the weird, "The White People" is itself an artifact of the weird. It's as though the reader is holding in his hands a thing that should not exist in a sane world.

"The Last Generation" by James Elroy Flecker, hands down.

Here's another, albeit belated, vote for Arthur Machen's 'The White People'.

I haven't read John C. Wright or The Last Generation by Fletcher, that I can recall. Must try them.

One shouldn't forget The King in Yellow.

I agree that The White People is right up there.

The City of the Singing Flame by Clark Ashton Smith seems to me to be of epochal importance.

If you're accepting novels, THE HOUSE ON THE BORDERLAND by Hodgson was very influential and is a sort of tour de force of weird tale-telling.

Short story: "The Derelict" by William Hope Hodgson.
Novel: "The House On The Borderland" by William Hope Hodgson.

But I must say it is a very tough and insidious question that is hard to answer. It is like asking you about which one of your children you love most. :-)

There are scores short stories and novels that come to mind if someone asks me what is the single greatest wierd tale of all times. "The House Of Sounds" by Shiel, "Terror" by Machen, "Horla" by Maupassant, "Spider" by Ewers, "At The Mountainms Of Mandess" by Lovecraft, "Genius Loci" by Smith, "The Republic Of The Southern Cross" by Brusov, "Dr. Cinderella‘s Plants" by Meyrink, "The Area" by Grabinski, "The Dark Chamber" by Cline, "The People Of The Pit" by Merritt,"The Badlands" by Metcalfe, "Animate In Death" by Lewis and so on and so on and so on ...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 17 Jun 21 | 06:55AM by Minicthulhu.

Oh my God, I answered the question last autumn and forgot about the fact so the answer I made today is virtually identical with that I wrote back then ... But, at least, it shows my viewpoints in this matter are very consistent. :-)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 17 Jun 21 | 07:02AM by Minicthulhu.

No worries, Minicthulhu: I was about to pitch in with ‘The White People’, but discovered only just in time that I had already done so.

I recently unearthed some comics that I wrote and drew as a teenager in high school. I was delighted to discover that most of the (terrible) jokes I made back then could still make me laugh.

Avoosl Wuthoqquan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No worries, Minicthulhu: I was about to pitch in
> with ‘The White People’, but discovered only
> just in time that I had already done so.
>
> I recently unearthed some comics that I wrote and
> drew as a teenager in high school. I was delighted
> to discover that most of the (terrible) jokes I
> made back then could still make me laugh.

HAH! :^)

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Geoffrey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... "The White People" is itself an artifact of
> the weird. It's as though the reader is holding in
> his hands a thing that should not exist in a sane
> world.

That must be the ideal for a weird story. The purest goal for every serious weird author to strive for.

Geoffrey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The White People" ... an artifact of
> the weird. It's as though the reader is holding in
> his hands a thing that should not exist in a sane
> world.

Besides supernatural tales, I generally I get this kind of weird sensation most clearly with great science fiction that describes the far distant future. Such as John W. Campbell Jr.'s "Twilight", A. E. van Vogt's "M 33 in Andromeda", Arthur C. Clarke's The City and the Stars and Rendezvous with Rama.

Arthur C. Clarke's Childhood's End is another very creepy weird science fiction novel, in how it describes mankind loosing its identity, succumbing to insidious alien influence to become something different and supposedly greater in cosmic evolution.

I also hear good things about Clarke's "A Meeting with Medusa", but have not read it yet.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I generally I get this kind of weird sensation most clearly with great
> science fiction that describes the far distant future.

Suggesting technology and science that doesn't exist today, but may exist in the future. If done so with insight, or mystical divination, and structural verisimilitude, it is the most substantial way of leading me to an almost soul-shaking sensation of weirdness. Much more so than a ghost-story can.

I went with The Last of All Suns since the setting, the characters and the plot made it feel like the culmination of the entire genre. I also absolutely loved the ending.

However, if you find that one too obscure, or perhaps even too modern, some other titles that crossed my mind:

The Night Ocean by Robert Hayward Barlow. Probably my first choice. Most literature, even good literature, has its fair share of filler content while this one feels like every single sentence is a product of deep and serious contemplation. It feels so thick with thought, if you don't mind me constructing such a ridiculous phrase.

The Three Marked Pennies by Mary Elizabeth Counselman. Just a well-rounded weird tale with no major flaws. Probably not even minor ones, to be honest.

The Repairer of Reputations by Robert William Chambers. If The Last of All Suns is the culmination of the genre then this would be where it all started. I know some people might suggest Poe but to me weird fiction as we know it, with the tropes we commonly associate with it, really took off with The King in Yellow.

Idle Days on the Yann by Lord Dunsany. I know the folks here aren't particularly fond of Dunsany but I find his prose incredibly smooth and being born in 1989 means that I grew up surrounded by what came to be known as "generic fantasy" and Dunsany with his approach to world-building felt as a breath of fresh air.

As for the Big Three:

The Double Shadow by Clark Ashton Smith. There are very few things in the universe, if any, that are as synonymous with the concept of passivity as shadows, and here we have one of them take an active, and eventually definite, role in deciding a man's fate, contrary to everything we thought we knew about this place called existence.

There are some other stories I prefer for one reason or another, such as The Planet of the Dead or The Holiness of Azédarac, and some that are arguably better, such as The Dark Eidolon, but they're either simply not as well-written as The Double Shadow, or, as is the case with The Dark Eidolon, more fantasy than weird fiction.

Worms of the Earth by Robert Ervin Howard. It has a bit of everything I like about Howard and even weird fiction in general, including not only his most intriguing character in Atla, but also some of his theories about races and "races". Recently I've been getting into archaeogenetics and it's interesting to see how off the mark some of our preconceived notions were.

Also, this one kinda reminds me of Smith's The Planet of the Dead, in that here too you can feel the author was very passionate about the topic. For Smith it was the poet's place in the modern world and for Howard it was the plight of his beloved Picts.

The Music of Erich Zann by Howard Phillips Lovecraft. Just a very neat little story that kinda encapsulates what this genre is all about. If someone new to weird fiction were to ask me for a suggestion, I'd probably go with this one.

The Sojourner of Worlds Wrote:
----------------------------------------------
> Idle Days on the Yann by Lord Dunsany. I know the
> folks here aren't particularly fond of Dunsany but
> I find his prose incredibly smooth and being born
> in 1989 means that I grew up surrounded by what
> came to be known as "generic fantasy" and Dunsany
> with his approach to world-building felt as a
> breath of fresh air.

I really do like this story, though I'm not sure I can analyze why. My general impression of Dunsany is that his cynicism is at war with his sense of wonder, and that this sometimes results in unique and inspired creations, while at other times he shoots himself in the foot.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Sojourner of Worlds Wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------
> > Idle Days on the Yann by Lord Dunsany. I know
> the
> > folks here aren't particularly fond of Dunsany
> but
> > I find his prose incredibly smooth and being
> born
> > in 1989 means that I grew up surrounded by what
> > came to be known as "generic fantasy" and
> Dunsany
> > with his approach to world-building felt as a
> > breath of fresh air.
>
> I really do like this story, though I'm not sure I
> can analyze why. My general impression of Dunsany
> is that his cynicism is at war with his sense of
> wonder, and that this sometimes results in unique
> and inspired creations, while at other times he
> shoots himself in the foot.

He seems a bit smug, at times.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Sojourner of Worlds Wrote:
-----------------------------------
> The Night Ocean by Robert Hayward Barlow. Probably
> my first choice. Most literature, even good
> literature, has its fair share of filler content
> while this one feels like every single sentence is
> a product of deep and serious contemplation. It
> feels so thick with thought, if you don't mind me
> constructing such a ridiculous phrase.

I didn't care for it. It is far too "serious" for me, and it is not the sort of "seriousness" I like. If the protagonist believes that life is meaningless and futile and that it ultimately does not matter if the sea monsters get him or not, then why should I care? Barlow ended up killing himself, and the mood and ideation of this story kept reminding me of that sad fact. To which my response is, "Don't do it, kids".

The Sojourner of Worlds Wrote:
> Worms of the Earth by Robert Ervin Howard. It has
> a bit of everything I like about Howard and even
> weird fiction in general, including not only his
> most intriguing character in Atla, but also some
> of his theories about races and "races". Recently
> I've been getting into archaeogenetics and it's
> interesting to see how off the mark some of our
> preconceived notions were.

This one very much impressed me. I recently reread it, and it still had an impact for me.

I gave this one a try.

I've always had a tough time with Howard's works--everything seems contrived to set up "good guy/bad guy" divide. And while he very much likes to adopt a sort of Nietzchean worldview for his "good guys", making them closer to a conventional bad guy (are Howard's main characters anti-heroes?), it's really like making Dirty Harry the good guy--he's supposed to be a product of the kind of world in which he lives.

Or better, Popeye Doyle.

He then goes to some length to make the characters stand out in some physical way. There can be no physically inconspicuous characters, it seems like. Howard seems to relish this.

Then the expository seems very clumsy and forced. In this case he starts with a bad guy cheerfully ordering a crucifixion.

I just can't get far enough into his works to gain exposures to his ideas--which might be interesting, but I just can't get past the writing. My guess is that Howard truly recognized what the average reader of the weird magazines wanted, and how they valued simplified melodrama over nuance and irony. His readers might not stick with a story to see that the tale is culminated in a final ironic situation, as happened in a CAS story where the main character and POV, being tortured to death by a society whose main cultural value seems to be sadism, plays a sorta "whatever yo' does, please don't throw me in dat dere briar patch" with his torturers, who fall for it, and die.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've always had a tough time with Howard's
> works--everything seems contrived to set up "good
> guy/bad guy" divide. And while he very much likes
> to adopt a sort of Nietzchean worldview for his
> "good guys", making them closer to a conventional
> bad guy (are Howard's main characters
> anti-heroes?), it's really like making Dirty Harry
> the good guy--he's supposed to be a product of the
> kind of world in which he lives.

There are no good guys in this story. Bran is a Faustian figure who makes a deal with the devil. Nothing he does is justified, and no good comes of anything he does. His only redeeming quality is that he is human enough to begin to regret the devil's trap he has walked into.

> He then goes to some length to make the characters
> stand out in some physical way. There can be no
> physically inconspicuous characters, it seems
> like. Howard seems to relish this.

Okay. But I do not see how Bran's physical prowess, or Sulla's, detracts from the story.

> Then the expository seems very clumsy and forced.
> In this case he starts with a bad guy cheerfully
> ordering a crucifixion.

It's unapologetically lurid, but I don't see anything clumsy about it.

The crucifixion is part of the setup, creating the motivation for Bran's drive for vengeance. It foreshadows the denouement, and Bran's horror at the form his own vengeance his taken. Sulla is no saint, but he is basically executing a murderer; and this angers Bran primarily because of Bran's pride.

Did you finish the story? It is hard to tell from your comments.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 4 Feb 22 | 12:05PM by Platypus.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I've always had a tough time with Howard's
> > works--everything seems contrived to set up
> "good
> > guy/bad guy" divide. And while he very much
> likes
> > to adopt a sort of Nietzchean worldview for his
> > "good guys", making them closer to a
> conventional
> > bad guy (are Howard's main characters
> > anti-heroes?), it's really like making Dirty
> Harry
> > the good guy--he's supposed to be a product of
> the
> > kind of world in which he lives.
>
> There are no good guys in this story. Bran is a
> Faustian figure who makes a deal with the devil.
> Nothing he does is justified, and no good comes of
> anything he does. His only redeeming quality is
> that he is human enough to begin to regret the
> devil's trap he has walked into.
>
> > He then goes to some length to make the
> characters
> > stand out in some physical way. There can be no
> > physically inconspicuous characters, it seems
> > like. Howard seems to relish this.
>
> Okay. But I do not see how Bran's physical
> prowess, or Sulla's, detracts from the story.

It's fine if you like there to be a connection between physical appearance and character, such as with The Phantom, Caliban, Richard the Third, or the entire Harkonnen family as envisioned by Lynch.

But unless there's some form of symbolic consistency--a symbolic physical representation of an internal character trait--I prefer not to have this level of description in short or intermediate length fiction.

>
> > Then the expository seems very clumsy and
> forced.
> > In this case he starts with a bad guy
> cheerfully
> > ordering a crucifixion.
>
> It's unapologetically lurid, but I don't see
> anything clumsy about it.

It's fine if you like lurid. I thought lurid fit well in CAS's The Weaver in the Vault.

>
> The crucifixion is part of the setup, creating the
> motivation for Bran's drive for vengeance. It
> foreshadows the denouement, and Bran's horror at
> the form his own vengeance his taken. Sulla is no
> saint, but he is basically executing a murderer;
> and this angers Bran primarily because of Bran's
> pride.
>
> Did you finish the story? It is hard to tell from
> your comments.

Did not finish it--very tough to get past his style.

Tell you what, Platypus, you make the story sound so morally nuanced that I'll give it a go after I get back from the gym. I'll make damned sure I get thru it, and I'll work hard to keep an open mind.

Ta, ta, for now!

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 4 Feb 22 | 12:28PM by Sawfish.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I've always had a tough time with Howard's
> > works--everything seems contrived to set up
> "good
> > guy/bad guy" divide. And while he very much
> likes
> > to adopt a sort of Nietzchean worldview for his
> > "good guys", making them closer to a
> conventional
> > bad guy (are Howard's main characters
> > anti-heroes?), it's really like making Dirty
> Harry
> > the good guy--he's supposed to be a product of
> the
> > kind of world in which he lives.
>
> There are no good guys in this story. Bran is a
> Faustian figure who makes a deal with the devil.
> Nothing he does is justified, and no good comes of
> anything he does. His only redeeming quality is
> that he is human enough to begin to regret the
> devil's trap he has walked into.
>
> > He then goes to some length to make the
> characters
> > stand out in some physical way. There can be no
> > physically inconspicuous characters, it seems
> > like. Howard seems to relish this.
>
> Okay. But I do not see how Bran's physical
> prowess, or Sulla's, detracts from the story.
>
> > Then the expository seems very clumsy and
> forced.
> > In this case he starts with a bad guy
> cheerfully
> > ordering a crucifixion.
>
> It's unapologetically lurid, but I don't see
> anything clumsy about it.
>
> The crucifixion is part of the setup, creating the
> motivation for Bran's drive for vengeance. It
> foreshadows the denouement, and Bran's horror at
> the form his own vengeance his taken. Sulla is no
> saint, but he is basically executing a murderer;
> and this angers Bran primarily because of Bran's
> pride.
>
> Did you finish the story? It is hard to tell from
> your comments.

I read it and it demonstrates that enjoyment of literature is highly subjective. I still don't care for the way Howard tells a story.

But again, it's subjective.

I may have mentioned this on ED before, but here's a story that has a lot of thematic similarities to some of the Howard stories. I like this one much better than any Howard story I've read, but could not easily tell you why. I'm going to leave out a little spoiler.

The Barrow Troll - 1975 David Drake

[baencd.freedoors.org]

Not long. If you read it, let me know what o think of it.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-----------------------
> I read it and it demonstrates that enjoyment of
> literature is highly subjective. I still don't
> care for the way Howard tells a story.
>
> But again, it's subjective.

Taste is definitely a thing.

> I may have mentioned this on ED before, but here's
> a story that has a lot of thematic similarities to
> some of the Howard stories. I like this one much
> better than any Howard story I've read, but could
> not easily tell you why. I'm going to leave out a
> little spoiler.
>
> The Barrow Troll - 1975 David Drake
>
> [baencd.freedoors.org]
> 0716__11.htm
>
> Not long. If you read it, let me know what o think
> of it.

I've read that one before. I did not dislike it, but it did not do much for me either. It felt very ... modern. I can't exactly say why, but there was no real sense that I was being transported to another time and place. Another pesky matter of taste, I guess.

The spoiler was that there's no supernatural element--indeed, the idea that the "troll" is serially transformed from a man by what amounts to a sort of avaricious OCDS does inject a modern sensibility, but since this only comes at the end it tends not to flavor the milieu or the plot until the ultimate resolution because to the modern reader, this seems possible, but to the contemporary characters, this was beyond their worldview.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The spoiler was that there's no supernatural
> element--indeed, the idea that the "troll" is
> serially transformed from a man by what amounts to
> a sort of avaricious OCDS does inject a modern
> sensibility, but since this only comes at the end
> it tends not to flavor the milieu or the plot
> until the ultimate resolution because to the
> modern reader, this seems possible, but to the
> contemporary characters, this was beyond their
> worldview.

Ulf does not have much of an arc. He is a mad evil monster at the beginning of the story, and remains a mad evil monster at the end of the story. The twist is that he goes mad in a different way than the reader could have reasonably anticipated. Which is not a bad twist. But not an earth-shattering one either.

I'm not sure I agree that there is no supernatural element. For two berserkers to go mad in the exact same place, in the exact same way, only 20 years apart, implies to me supernatural curse. Explaining it instead as "serial avaricious OCDS" does not sound more plausible to me. It just sounds more modern. But this does not make your theory wrong. You like the story better than I do, and probably understand it better too.

Ulf is impossible to identify with as a character. It seems every waking moment is spent trying to figure out how to be as brutally evil as possible. I don't mind villains as main characters, but I'd like to understand what drives and tempts them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 5 Feb 22 | 08:55PM by Platypus.

I might add that cursed hoards that transform their guardians into monsters are not unknown in northern legends. There is also the case of Fafnir, who was somehow transformed into a dragon.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I might add that cursed hoards that transform
> their guardians into monsters are not unknown in
> northern legends. There is also the case of
> Fafnir, who was somehow transformed into a dragon.


I just re-read the story.

There's a lot about it I don't like, e.g., the first two paragraphs seem like a forced, rushed expository designed to quickly give an impatient reader the story frame. This is OK for this kind of fiction (pulp, basically), I guess.

I think a part of the modern feel that you noted (I detect this, too) is that the narrative POV is split between Ulf and the priest, Johann. This permits the injection of a conventional morality--Johann's comments and implied thoughts are more aligned with our modern ideas. If the story was from Ulf's it would not have this added layer of commentary.

The Bran Mac Morn story was entirely from his POV, and hence we bring only our own moral observations. I prefer Howard's approach in this case.

As far as Ulf being evil, here's an interesting point: do you think that Ulf or his ilk, the old troll, e.g., would see themselves as evil? Would the culture from which they both sprung view Ulf's actions as immoral or evil? We know that Johann's culture does, and our own as well, but what about the pre-Christian Nordics?

I think that the parts I liked were the revelations during Ulf's re-telling about how he came by the information--the massacre of the woman's household. What his story told us about how he thought, what he valued.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I gave this one a try.
>
> I've always had a tough time with Howard's
> works--everything seems contrived to set up "good
> guy/bad guy" divide. And while he very much likes
> to adopt a sort of Nietzchean worldview for his
> "good guys", making them closer to a conventional
> bad guy (are Howard's main characters
> anti-heroes?), it's really like making Dirty Harry
> the good guy--he's supposed to be a product of the
> kind of world in which he lives.
>
> Or better, Popeye Doyle.
>
> He then goes to some length to make the characters
> stand out in some physical way. There can be no
> physically inconspicuous characters, it seems
> like. Howard seems to relish this.
>
> Then the expository seems very clumsy and forced.
> In this case he starts with a bad guy cheerfully
> ordering a crucifixion.
>
> I just can't get far enough into his works to gain
> exposures to his ideas--which might be
> interesting, but I just can't get past the
> writing. My guess is that Howard truly recognized
> what the average reader of the weird magazines
> wanted, and how they valued simplified melodrama
> over nuance

Interesting observations as always, Sawfish. One thing about Howard many either don't know or are only tangentially aware of is that his immensely popular stuff was written AFTER a period of writing a body of historical fiction, with more realistic character development, but less marketability. The omnipresent violence remains, naturally. In "Hawks of Outremer", or one of the Cormac FitzGeoffrey tales, a battle axe is thrown a long distance, yet still cleaves the skull of a "bad guy"(gimme a break)! These are all collected in SWORD WOMAN & other Historical Adventures, which I got at a film convention last year. I read the title story and a few others. Impressive, and while not radically divergent stylistically, they sport a genuine historical sensibility that gave way to the pure fantasy of what became his Weird Tales legacy. The "Hyborian Age" of the Conan tales was a reassertion of his commitment to the framework if not the spirit of serious historical fiction. "Sword Woman" is one of the best stories he ever wrote.

jkh

Thanks for this added information, Kipling!

I'll give Howard a few more tries--this last time, with Worms of the Earth, there were a few things I really liked--he put us unequivocally inside the head of a man of extreme action of the era, as best Howard understood it. I think maybe he has such an admiration for this cultural tradition (N. European aggression and free-booting) that he raises it to the level of heroism (anti-heroism?) and in part it's that I object to ***stylistically***, not morally, and it's simply a personal reflection of my personal mistrust of and disdain for heroes.

Quirky as hell, I know...

I just re-read Houellebecq's Possibility of an Island--no heroes there, I assure you. And yet I'm more comfortable with that than otherwise.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kipling Wrote:
> In "Hawks of Outremer", or one of the
> Cormac FitzGeoffrey tales, a battle axe is thrown
> a long distance, yet still cleaves the skull of a
> "bad guy"(gimme a break)!

The only distance specified in the story is "the other side of a moat with drawbridge raised". This, plus the fact that the baron is surrounded by retainers, and not for any particularly long distance, is why the baron thinks he is safe from Cormac, who has just challenged him to a sword-fight. Which does not strain credibility for me. The throw is at a downward angle, even, since Cormac is mounted and the baron afoot. It is achievable by random axe-throwers on youtube, so I won't blink at it being achieved by a larger-than-life hero in a world of medieval escapism. A "battle axe" is, in its broadest sense, merely a combat axe as distinct from a utility axe, so there is no need to blink at this one being sufficiently light and balanced to be thrown effectively by a strong man.

I'm not sure why "bad guy" is in scare quotes. The baron is a traitor responsible for the death of Cormac's friend, and so Cormac seeks revenge. Perhaps this is not the best motive in the world, nor Cormac the most engaging of heroes, but it is what it is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 7 Feb 22 | 10:19PM by Platypus.

For all Howard's rhetoric about the incredible strength, speed, vitality, etc., of his larger-than-life pulp heroes, he is generally pretty good at keeping their physical feats more-or-less within the limits of human plausibility. Howard has his weaknesses, but this is not one of them.

Kipling Wrote:
> One
> thing about Howard many either don't know or are
> only tangentially aware of is that his immensely
> popular stuff was written AFTER a period of
> writing a body of historical fiction, with more
> realistic character development, but less
> marketability.

I would question this chronology. The two stories you mention are THE HAWKS OF OUTREMER (1931) and SWORD WOMAN (posthumous). HAWKS is more or less contemporaneous with the first CONAN story. But it is preceded by IN THE FOREST OF VILLEFERE, SEA CURSE, at least two KULL stories and at least five SOLOMON KANE stories, all of which were published 1925 though 1930. REH tried to sell stories in multiple markets, and achieved particular sucess with CONAN from 1931 onward, but he was always drawn to the weird tale and the weird adventure tale.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 8 Feb 22 | 01:37AM by Platypus.

No chronology was attempted. The book I mentioned is a stout 400 pages, and some of the works within were indeed written before any of the Conan stories or any of the Lovecraftian stories Howard wrote. As for the hawk of Outremer, I didn't mention that I read that story in my early 20s, but thanks to your careful checking of the text I stand corrected. The "other side of the moat" could indeed have been targeted and the axe throw executed as described, however unlikely. The fact that it surprised me works in its favor, even if I did scoff. The quote marks around "bad guy" were to suggest that Howard's heroic fantasy is viewed as too formulaic to some readers, not to me. BTW, did you see the video feature showing the restored Robert E. Howard home? They retrieved as much of his personal library as they could. Interesting to see one of the old typewriters he used and some manuscripts. The curators did a great job.

jkh

uPlatypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kipling Wrote:
> > In "Hawks of Outremer", or one of the
> > Cormac FitzGeoffrey tales, a battle axe is
> thrown
> > a long distance, yet still cleaves the skull of
> a
> > "bad guy"(gimme a break)!
>
> The only distance specified in the story is "the
> other side of a moat with drawbridge raised".
> This, plus the fact that the baron is surrounded
> by retainers, and not for any particularly long
> distance, is why the baron thinks he is safe from
> Cormac, who has just challenged him to a
> sword-fight. Which does not strain credibility
> for me. The throw is at a downward angle, even,
> since Cormac is mounted and the baron afoot. It
> is achievable by random axe-throwers on youtube,

There are now YouTubed replications of the feats of Howard's heroes? ;^)


> so I won't blink at it being achieved by a
> larger-than-life hero in a world of medieval
> escapism. A "battle axe" is, in its broadest
> sense, merely a combat axe as distinct from a
> utility axe, so there is no need to blink at this
> one being sufficiently light and balanced to be
> thrown effectively by a strong man.
>
> I'm not sure why "bad guy" is in scare quotes.
> The baron is a traitor responsible for the death
> of Cormac's friend, and so Cormac seeks revenge.
> Perhaps this is not the best motive in the world,
> nor Cormac the most engaging of heroes, but it is
> what it is.

Diverging here to two things I noticed, one in Worms, now in this present thread, and is related in two ways to another instance I recall.

Long ago I read a Conan (I believe) story which explained his expulsion from his own tribe. It seems like the tribe was attending the execution (by burning) of a young tribeswoman who was the lover of a pirate who had preyed upon the tribe. In this segment there is: a) the motif of the condemned looking imploringly at the hero for deliverance (as in Worms with the crucified Pict); b) the throwing of an edged weapon to achieve a quick end.

I wonder if ardent readers of Howard have noted recognizable instances of either implored deliverance from a painful death by a swifter death; and the fairly heroic throwing of an edged weapon to achieve a sudden surprise end to a given situation.

Further, I wonder if there are recurring instances of the hero of the story mercy killing as an act of empathy and humanity.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kipling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No chronology was attempted. The book I mentioned
> is a stout 400 pages, and some of the works within
> were indeed written before any of the Conan
> stories or any of the Lovecraftian stories Howard
> wrote.

I'm unsure of the order in which pieces were WRITTEN. According to isfdb, the earliest-PUBLISHED pieces in your collection were the two Cormac FitzGeoffrey stories, both published in 1931 in ORIENTAL TALES (an unsuccessful project, also edited by Farnsworth Wright). Many of the pieces in your collection were published posthumously.

By 1931, REH was already an established writer for WIERD TALES. But it is true that his earliest-published CONAN tale, and his earliest published CTHULHU MYTHOS tale, were yet to appear.

But obviously, REH was interested in history. And while all his published Solomon Kane pieces were weird fiction, his Solomon Kane poem "The One Black Stain" (not published til 1962) is historical fiction, and clearly not written for the demands of the market. I would not be surprised if it were the earliest Solomon Kane piece he ever wrote.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 8 Feb 22 | 10:48AM by Platypus.

Sawfish Wrote:
> There are now YouTubed replications of the feats
> of Howard's heroes? ;^)

Well ... in the sense of showing that it is not impossible to hurl an axe 15, 20 or even 30 feet and have it stick in the bulls-eye, yes. There is an entire genre of youtube videos, of varying quality, exploring what is and is not possible for medieval-style weapons.

Sawfish Wrote:
> I wonder if ardent readers of Howard have noted
> recognizable instances of either implored
> deliverance from a painful death by a swifter
> death; and the fairly heroic throwing of an edged
> weapon to achieve a sudden surprise end to a given
> situation.

"You cannot possibly reach me before I tug this cord and send you to hell." -- gloating villain from ROGUES IN THE HOUSE. However, Conan threw a stool, which is not an edged weapon.

Sawfish Wrote:
> I wonder if ardent readers of Howard have noted
> recognizable instances of either implored
> deliverance from a painful death by a swifter
> death;

TOWER OF THE ELEPHANT features an implored deliverance from a tortured existence. The "elephant" asks Conan to kill it.

Thinking superficially, now, I wonder if, among the big three of weird fiction (Howard, Smith, Lovecraft) Howard might be considered to be more concerned with the characters--their feelings and motivations, than the other two.

Generally speaking, of course...

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
> As far as Ulf being evil, here's an interesting
> point: do you think that Ulf or his ilk, the old
> troll, e.g., would see themselves as evil?

They are both mad, so who knows?

If Ulf were a real person, I would leave God to judge his soul. But since he is only a character in a book, why hesitate to say that he is obviously a villain? I'm sure that is David Drake's opinion, and I for one agree with him.

> Would
> the culture from which they both sprung view Ulf's
> actions as immoral or evil?

You mean the cultures of the pagan Norse? Again, who knows? Nobody was recording cultural attitudes until Christians showed up and began writing stuff down.

This is the eternal question that torments moral subjectivists. But I believe in objective morality, and his actions are evil regardless of what his culture thinks.

If you want me to guess, my guess is this. Yes, I do think the pagan Norse would, by and large, have considered Ulf to be evil. History sees the Norsemen through the eyes of those who were victims of their ravages and piracy. But I don't think it is entirely fair to judge an entire culture by the standards of a handful of adventuring pirates. And my guess is, that when these adventuring pirates came home to their communities, they did not by and large boast to their wives and children about how many women they had raped and how many babies they had slaughtered. Because that sort of thing does not tend to go over well with most people. Good and evil are at war in all communities and in all ages of the world.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You mean the cultures of the pagan Norse? Again,
> who knows? Nobody was recording cultural
> attitudes until Christians showed up ... .
>
>

The Poetic Edda (and Prose Edda) holds codes and guidelines for living.

The Icelandic films When the Raven Flies (1984) and In the Shadow of the Raven (1987) are valuable, and portray pagan perspectives. But mainly tell stories of revenge. On the whole the Vikings lived ordinary ordered lives, taking care of their communities.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> > As far as Ulf being evil, here's an interesting
> > point: do you think that Ulf or his ilk, the
> old
> > troll, e.g., would see themselves as evil?
>
> They are both mad, so who knows?

Not exactly.

Ulf starts the story as a simple unrestrained opportunist, just like the kind you find in the homeless encampments in the bigger west coast cities, the main difference being that the homeless are gradually working themselves into believing that they can get away with anything, whereas Ulf already thinks that.

He transitions to madness as a result of acquiring the hoard, and we can infer the the previous "troll" probably went thru the same process.

Before acquiring the treasure, I think that there's a better chance that they thought of themselves as clever or successful, rather than evil. Afterward, they no longer seemed to think much.

>
> If Ulf were a real person, I would leave God to
> judge his soul. But since he is only a character
> in a book, why hesitate to say that he is
> obviously a villain? I'm sure that is David
> Drake's opinion, and I for one agree with him.

He's the villain of the story, no doubt. But the question I posed was from his own perspective: does he consider his own actions to be evil, or even wrong? And I'm not sure about that--he gives no evidence of an internal struggle justifying his actions.

>
> > Would
> > the culture from which they both sprung view
> Ulf's
> > actions as immoral or evil?
>
> You mean the cultures of the pagan Norse? Again,
> who knows? Nobody was recording cultural
> attitudes until Christians showed up and began
> writing stuff down.

What the Christian observers who witnessed their incursions wrote indicates that they felt little human kinship with their victims and viewed them as prey. Since they came in groups, one might infer that significant sections of their society felt similarly, and contrariwise, if the societies from which they came thought these actions evil or wrong, then the raiders would have little local following.

I'd say that the simplest working assumption is that the Nordic pagan cultures of the time viewed violent opportunism *against foreign societies* as no worse than whaling or trapping.

>
> This is the eternal question that torments moral
> subjectivists. But I believe in objective
> morality, and his actions are evil regardless of
> what his culture thinks.

The point is, do cultures share a common morality? To me it looks like there's some sharing on main issues (murder, wife-theft, etc.) but the cultures differ widely on where the borders of incest, child exploitation for labor, etc., slavery, but the largest variance is over *who* these moral precepts apply to. If it's "wrong" to take another tribemember's wife, is it also wrong to take an outsider's wife?

And that, right there, the extension of moral protection beyond the family/tribe/clan/nation, is itself perhaps the biggest difference in applications of moral principals. We now have individuals in western liberal democracies who think that not only do moral protections apply to all humans on earth, but to non-humans as well, and hence they'd view others who don't agree as immoral--possibly evil.

>
> If you want me to guess, my guess is this. Yes, I
> do think the pagan Norse would, by and large, have
> considered Ulf to be evil.

I could see this, and the largest internal signal is that Ulf is a loner--not a part of a group of like-minded raiders.

> History sees the
> Norsemen through the eyes of those who were
> victims of their ravages and piracy.

Similar to the way mid-20th C Germany is recorded, historically.

> But I don't
> think it is entirely fair to judge an entire
> culture by the standards of a handful of
> adventuring pirates. And my guess is, that when
> these adventuring pirates came home to their
> communities, they did not by and large boast to
> their wives and children about how many women they
> had raped and how many babies they had
> slaughtered. Because that sort of thing does not
> tend to go over well with most people.

Most modern people, yes.

> Good and
> evil are at war in all communities and in all ages
> of the world.

But the exact boundries of what is "good" or "evil" change according to time and place. This makes it relative, and not absolute.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Platypus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > You mean the cultures of the pagan Norse?
> Again,
> > who knows? Nobody was recording cultural
> > attitudes until Christians showed up ... .
> >
> >
>
> The Poetic Edda (and Prose Edda) holds codes and
> guidelines for living.
>
> The Icelandic films When the Raven Flies (1984)
> and In the Shadow of the Raven (1987) are
> valuable, and portray pagan perspectives. But
> mainly tell stories of revenge. On the whole the
> Vikings lived ordinary ordered lives, taking care
> of their communities.

Yes, I would expect this *within their communities*--otherwise, no order = no long-term cultural survival. Whether this concern for order applied to others seems less certain.

The current ideas of the brotherhood of Man is fairly recent, I think. Extending full moral/ethical protections, unilaterally and proactively, to outsiders was not the norm, from what I've read.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
> Ulf starts the story as a simple unrestrained
> opportunist, just like the kind you find in the
> homeless encampments in the bigger west coast
> cities, the main difference being that the
> homeless are gradually working themselves into
> believing that they can get away with anything,
> whereas Ulf already thinks that.

Why are we talking about homeless people? I'm sure some of them are terrible sinners, but I would guess that the vast majority of them do not chop random women up with axes just for yuks. And those that do are quickly removed from society.

> Before acquiring the treasure, I think that
> there's a better chance that they thought of
> themselves as clever or successful, rather than
> evil.

If criminals were their own judges, they 99% of them would adjudge themselves innocent.

> He's the villain of the story, no doubt. But the
> question I posed was from his own perspective:
> does he consider his own actions to be evil, or
> even wrong?

Who cares? As I said, if criminals were their own judges, they would adjudge themselves innocent 99% of the time.

> What the Christian observers who witnessed their
> incursions wrote indicates that they felt little
> human kinship with their victims and viewed them
> as prey.

Same with criminal gangs today.

> Since they came in groups, one might
> infer that significant sections of their society
> felt similarly, ....

I suppose you could make similar arguments about criminal gangs today.

> and contrariwise, if the societies
> from which they came thought these actions evil or
> wrong, then the raiders would have little local
> following.

Depends on where they raided. If they raided far from home, and victimized people of different languages, they might have been relatively unconcerned about the reports that might reach their communities.

> I'd say that the simplest working assumption is
> that the Nordic pagan cultures of the time viewed
> violent opportunism *against foreign societies* as
> no worse than whaling or trapping.

Yet, the evidenced suggests, that when Beowulf got home from adventuring abroad, he did not boast of the number of women he had raped and the number of babies he had cut in half. Rather he boasted of being a benefactor to the foreign kingdom he encountered. Which story was closer to the truth is more than I can say.

> The point is, do cultures share a common morality?

Atheists used to argue that they did. They called it the "Natural Law".

> To me it looks like there's some sharing on main
> issues (murder, wife-theft, etc.) ....

Ulf chops random women to death with his axe just for yuks. That's what we are talking about.

> ... but the cultures
> differ widely on where the borders of incest,
> child exploitation for labor, etc., slavery, ....

We're talking about Ulf. I did not call him evil because he married his first cousin or gave a 12 year old some chores.

> ... but
> the largest variance is over *who* these moral
> precepts apply to. If it's "wrong" to take another
> tribemember's wife, is it also wrong to take an
> outsider's wife?

The question is whether it is wrong to chop her in half just for yuks.

> And that, right there, the extension of moral
> protection beyond the family/tribe/clan/nation, is
> itself perhaps the biggest difference in
> applications of moral principals.

Even if you believe different standards should be applied to your Jewish neighbors as opposed to those rotten Samaritans, there is room to believe that you should not chop Samaritan women up with axes just for yuks.

> We now have
> individuals in western liberal democracies who
> think that not only do moral protections apply to
> all humans on earth, ....

Jesus taught this 2000 years ago. That's what his parable about the Samaritan is about. The idea is much older than "Western Liberal Democracies".

But his point was not "don't chop foreign women in half just for yuks". Nobody asked him that question.

> ... but to non-humans as well,
> and hence they'd view others who don't agree as
> immoral--possibly evil.

No-one actually believes in equal rights for mice and cockroaches. There is no coherent moral system here. It is just another argument for moral nihilism.

> Similar to the way mid-20th C Germany is recorded,
> historically.

I don't believe that mid-20th century Germans were devoid of morality. Some of them were moral nihilists to be sure, but that is hardly confined to Germany.


> > But I don't
> > think it is entirely fair to judge an entire
> > culture by the standards of a handful of
> > adventuring pirates. And my guess is, that
> when
> > these adventuring pirates came home to their
> > communities, they did not by and large boast to
> > their wives and children about how many women
> they
> > had raped and how many babies they had
> > slaughtered. Because that sort of thing does
> not
> > tend to go over well with most people.
>
> Most modern people, yes.

If posters on the internet are any indication, many modern people are perfectly okay with everything Ulf does, because they are moral nihilists. But we were not talking about modern people. We were talking about ancient pagans.

> > Good and
> > evil are at war in all communities and in all ages
> > of the world.
>
> But the exact boundries of what is "good" or
> "evil" change according to time and place. This
> makes it relative, and not absolute.

If God does not exist, then all things are permissible, as long as the cops, or the twitter mob, or President Xi do not catch you. But if God does exist, then right and wrong will not change according to the opinions of specific individuals, or of specific cultures. Nor will it vary based on the opinion of the cops, or the twitter mob, or President Xi.

I did not come here to preach religion. But do I have to get a nihilistic lecture every time I use the word "evil"? Can't we just agree to disagree?



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 9 Feb 22 | 04:49PM by Platypus.

Knygatin Wrote:
> The Poetic Edda (and Prose Edda) holds codes and
> guidelines for living.

What do they say about chopping women in half just for yuks?

> The Icelandic films When the Raven Flies (1984)
> and In the Shadow of the Raven (1987) are
> valuable, and portray pagan perspectives.

There was never a pure, untrammeled pagan Icelandic culture. When the Old Norse settled Iceland in the 9th century, they found Christian holy men already there, as if waiting for them.

The idea that a movie made 12 centuries later can somehow accurately represent ancient pagans is dubious to the extreme.

> On the whole the
> Vikings lived ordinary ordered lives, taking care
> of their communities.

Well, I wasn't there. But so I imagine.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 9 Feb 22 | 05:14PM by Platypus.

Platypus, you seem to think I'm making an apology for behaviors that neither of us find acceptable. I don't see it that way. I see myself as exploring how it is acts you and I view as atrocious take place, and fairly routinely, as history records. Any description of the Hun or Mongol invasions or Europe, Japanese invasion of China in WWII, makes Ulf seem like the veriest tyro. And this happens *still* in places like Africa, the Balkans, the middle east.

So me, I try to figure out the motivation for it and it falls into two main directions: all those who have done these acts are evil, in a sort of absolutist spiritual sense--entire nations, even; or the acts they're committing seem to them as fair and permissible in the context in which they commit them.

I see no demonstrable basis for the former--it requires an external authority that has set out immutable standards, and this would be a deity; in any event, it's a centraized authority that never amends the moral backbone. You seem to accept this on faith and I don't. And "natural law" is simply substituting the word "Nature" for "God".

This is an extremely unsatisfactory explanation for me.

I can see the elements of these behaviors in myself and in others. With the aid of my early parental training, I formed ethical habits that permit me to survive/succeed without resorting to any of this, and I'm happy about that fact.

But there are lots and lots of others who don't feel so constrained, nor do they view themselves as evil or even very wrong. Their biggest transgression is that they got caught, as they see it.

So what to do? I look for them and keep well away from them, and the actual societal answer (for our nominally lawful society) is to separate these individuals, however many there are, from the rest of society. They could be incarcerated, euthanzied, or permanently isolated to live among others like themselves.

All it takes is the will to do so, and adequate power--power being the ultimate wildcard in human society.

But on no account can they coexist with lawful society without obeying the negotiated laws. If they are tolerated, the lawful society will break down to the lowest common denominator that ensures individual survival.

And here's the central irony: the instant that the social misfits that I described have sufficient power and will, it is *their* code (or non-code) that will be the norm, and we'll be marginalized. Sort of a kill-or-be killed, eat-or-be-eaten.

In sense, Howard was right about all this.

And that's what I meant by explaining Ulf.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Platypus, you seem to think I'm making an apology
> for behaviors that neither of us find acceptable.

I only think you are a moral nihilist, which is pretty clear at this point. So was H.P. Lovecraft, an author I admire. I don't want to pass judgment on either of you. I don't even particularly want to argue about this issue. But every time I mention a moral concept, like "evil", you seem to feel compelled to weigh in.

> So me, I try to figure out the motivation for it
> and it falls into two main directions: all those
> who have done these acts are evil, in a sort of
> absolutist spiritual sense--entire nations, even;
> or the acts they're committing seem to them as
> fair and permissible in the context in which they
> commit them.

I see 3 ideas here.

One, is that you are conflating the idea that sin exists, with the idea that all sinners are "evil, in a sort of absolute spiritual sense". I hope it is obvious that this hugely distorts the Christian position.

Second, is the idea that entire nations are evil in "a sort of absolutist spiritual sense". I can make no sense of this at all. My religion does not teach that nations have immortal souls, only that people do.

Thirdly, is the sense that you are bothered by the problem of how one man can judge another man's soul, when that other man may have been raised in the wrong kind of culture and taught the wrong kind of things, perhaps through no fault of his own. This bothers you of course, because you do not believe in God. It does not bother the Christian one bit, because he DOES believe in God, believes that it is God's job, and God's job alone, to judge men's souls; and in fact that he as a Christian is forbidden to try to do this.

> I see no demonstrable basis for the former--it
> requires an external authority that has set out
> immutable standards, and this would be a deity; in
> any event, it's a centraized authority that never
> amends the moral backbone. You seem to accept this
> on faith and I don't.

Yes. And to the extent that we were discussing the attitudes of ancient pagans, I believe they are more likely to be on my side than yours. They believed that kings, princes and entire cultures were subject to the will of the gods, and that kings and princes and entire cultures might be punished by the gods for their transgressions. They did not think that morality was man-made, or that there was no higher authority than the king, the culture, the personal superego, or any other human entity.

> And "natural law" is simply
> substituting the word "Nature" for "God".

Feel free to have that argument with a fellow atheist who is NOT a moral nihilist. It's really not my fight.

> I can see the elements of these behaviors in
> myself and in others. With the aid of my early
> parental training, I formed ethical habits that
> permit me to survive/succeed without resorting to
> any of this, and I'm happy about that fact.

Well then, you have what I would call a "moral sense". You have a theory ("early parental training") explaining how this moral sense came to be. HP Lovecraft would have called his moral sense "aesthetic". But regardless of how your moral sense came to be, you have a philosophy that tells you that any moral perceptions you have are pure delusion, with no basis whatsoever in any external reality. Nonetheless, you say you can and do follow your moral sense. And, in a meaningless world (as you suppose it to be), why not? And perhaps in doing so, you are a better person than many a devout Christian. That is not for me to judge.

> But there are lots and lots of others who don't
> feel so constrained, nor do they view themselves
> as evil or even very wrong. Their biggest
> transgression is that they got caught, as they see
> it.

So now you raise the thorny problem of how to judge the souls of men who may, through no fault of their own, have been born or raised with a deficient or inaccurate moral sense. But I've already told you the Christian answer. We DON'T judge his soul. We leave it to God to do that. The God that you don't believe exists.

So my suggestion to you is that we not have these debates every time I mention a moral concept. I have answers to all your questions. They are just not answers that you can accept because you reject the concept of God (or gods, or karma). We will only go round and round in circles.

> So what to do? I look for them and keep well away
> from them, and the actual societal answer (for our
> nominally lawful society) is to separate these
> individuals, however many there are, from the rest
> of society. They could be incarcerated,
> euthanzied, or permanently isolated to live among
> others like themselves.

In an ancient or medieval world, prison was rarely a practical nor a humane solution. Exile, execution, or perhaps a good thrashing, were the only methods available. But when a man was executed for a crime, the idea was rarely to pass judgment on his soul, which the Christian religion forbids. Rather, the formula was often to have a ritual where God was asked to have mercy on the soul of the executed man. Criminal justice was a necessary but regrettable duty performed for the protection of the community.

> All it takes is the will to do so, and adequate
> power--power being the ultimate wildcard in human
> society.

Pagans did not believe that (human) power was the ultimate wildcard in human society.

> And here's the central irony: the instant that the
> social misfits that I described have sufficient
> power and will, it is *their* code (or non-code)
> that will be the norm, and we'll be marginalized.
> Sort of a kill-or-be killed, eat-or-be-eaten.
>
> In sense, Howard was right about all this.

Not sure what you are saying here. Howard's work is somewhat amoral, from a purely Christian perspective, but I don't think he was a moral nihilist. I would say that overall, the evidence is very much against this idea.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 9 Feb 22 | 10:54PM by Platypus.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> > The Poetic Edda (and Prose Edda) holds codes and
> > guidelines for living.
>
> What do they say about chopping women in half just
> for yuks?
>
>

What proof do you have for such a rash comment about Vikings? Portraying them as evil madmen. You are either making a very bad joke, or else this is the most ignorant comment I have heard from you yet. (There is on the other hand lots of historic evidence for the Christian church torturing and killing people in Europe, and elsewhere, after this religion was forced onto Europeans.) Brutality is not something particular to Vikings, it can be seen among all cultures, among all animals, under certain conditions, when under pressure.

You have NOT READ The Edda?! But you don't mind reading and watching and filling your brain with all kinds of other literary pulp trash. :/

People today (such as yourself and the "professor") prefer the HOLLYWOOD narrative, and the Jewish-Christian historiography about Europe, and about white men in particular. And don't want to take part of any information that may challenge it. They even identify with Jewish-Christian culture more than they do with their own white European heritage. They have been taught to hate and condemn themselves as a people, and to willingly mix away and erase themselves through mass immigration. They are more concerned about the situation for Jews in Malmö than they are for the Swedish people. They don't even care that white Europeans are pushed back from their living space, and white girls are raped en masse in Europe today. IT IS A DISGRACE!!! TRAITORS!!!

Wow.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Platypus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Knygatin Wrote:
> > > The Poetic Edda (and Prose Edda) holds codes
> > > and guidelines for living.
> >
> > What do they say about chopping women in half
> > just for yuks?
>
> What proof do you have for such a rash comment
> about Vikings?

What rash comment about Vikings? I made no rash comments about Vikings. I merely asked how the Edda relates to the topic of conversation.

> Portraying them as evil madmen.

I never did any such thing. My position is that we don't know much about their culture in pure, untrammeled pagan times, but that my guess is that they probably would have disapproved of Ulf's behavior. My guess would be that the typical pagan perspective was probably closer to the Christian perspective than it is to the post-modern moral nihilist perspective.

> You
> are either making a very bad joke, or else this is
> the most ignorant comment I have heard from you
> yet.

And you are not following the conversation.

> You have NOT READ The Edda?!

I've read parts of it. At some point, I'd like to be able to say I read the whole thing. But why are you in personal attack mode? You don't even understand the conversation you are injecting yourself into. And I only asked you a simple question about how the Edda relates to the topic of conversation. A conversation which you are apparently not following.

> But you don't mind
> reading and watching and filling your brain with
> all kinds of other literary pulp trash. :/

What next? Will you insult me for reading CAS in a CAS forum?

> People today (such as yourself and the
> "professor") prefer the HOLLYWOOD narrative,

Dude. You're the one who just recommended I learn about vikings by watching a movie.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 10 Feb 22 | 08:48AM by Platypus.

Obviously we are all still involved in the controversy that arose in Heaven. God exists. Darwinism is a joke. Next subject.

jkh

Kipling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obviously we are all still involved in the
> controversy that arose in Heaven. God exists.
> Darwinism is a joke. Next subject.

I never mentioned Darwinism, nor said that it was a joke, nor even believe that it is a joke. I did not come here to discuss religion at all, except maybe in a historical sense. These issues keep coming up because I am not a moral nihilist, for which I make no apology. People don't like it when I use the word "evil", even as applies to a fictional character who chops women in half for no reason. They keep telling me there is no such thing as good and evil because God does not exist. And I keep answering that I believe in God, so let's agree to disagree on this, okay? And now Knygatin is once again screaming at me about the Jewish-Christian menace.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10 Feb 22 | 10:54AM by Platypus.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Platypus, you seem to think I'm making an
> apology
> > for behaviors that neither of us find
> acceptable.
>
> I only think you are a moral nihilist, which is
> pretty clear at this point.

Yes, but simply because it is the most economical explanation. I have no irons in the fire WRT to whether religions or valid or not for those who practice them.

It's just simply that I find no satisfaction in theological explanations, nothing more than that, Platypus.

> So was H.P.
> Lovecraft, an author I admire. I don't want to
> pass judgment on either of you. I don't even
> particularly want to argue about this issue. But
> every time I mention a moral concept, like "evil",
> you seem to feel compelled to weigh in.

Yes, the questions of ethics, morality, good/evil interest me, but more from a pragmatic standpoint that a moral one.

>
> > So me, I try to figure out the motivation for
> it
> > and it falls into two main directions: all
> those
> > who have done these acts are evil, in a sort of
> > absolutist spiritual sense--entire nations,
> even;
> > or the acts they're committing seem to them as
> > fair and permissible in the context in which
> they
> > commit them.
>
> I see 3 ideas here.
>
> One, is that you are conflating the idea that sin
> exists, with the idea that all sinners are "evil,
> in a sort of absolute spiritual sense".

This is why I like to engage on these topics.

I, personally, do not recognize sin. The individual either conforms, or not, to the agreed upon social code currently in lawful force.

So while I have no respect/regard for homosexuals (or very little), I don't view their actions as sinful, or even restricted, at this point in history.


>I hope it
> is obvious that this hugely distorts the Christian
> position.

Which one? Do all the various sects and denominations even agree on that? What about predestination in Calvinism? All those who are not saved at birth seem to be damned beyond redemption.

>
> Second, is the idea that entire nations are evil
> in "a sort of absolutist spiritual sense". I can
> make no sense of this at all. My religion does
> not teach that nations have immortal souls, only
> that people do.

OK.

Then at times huge pluralities of various nations were either evil or misled on the individual level, is this how you see it?

I think functionally this is not a lot different from how I see it, except that the plurality opposed the principals of me and people like me. Not ethics, a question of force--either sufficient to for compliance to their aims, or sufficient to repel their goals.

>
> Thirdly, is the sense that you are bothered by the
> problem of how one man can judge another man's
> soul, when that other man may have been raised in
> the wrong kind of culture and taught the wrong
> kind of things, perhaps through no fault of his
> own.

OK, let me clear it up.

First, I see no soul.

Second, I don't care about the underlying reasons for why miscreants deviate from behaviors that I--and probably you--find unacceptable and are also illegal. Their "reasons" sound to me like excuses, and I'll have none of that from strangers--unproven individuals.


> This bothers you of course, because you do
> not believe in God.

No, as I explained above.

What bothers me is the possibility that those whom I find reprehensible and unbound by social of legal norms will ascend to the majority either through sheer numbers, lack of public will power to simply enforce existing laws effectively, or a combination of the two.

For the first time in my life, since 6-8 years ago, I see this not only as a possibility, but an increasing possibility.

> It does not bother the
> Christian one bit, because he DOES believe in God,
> believes that it is God's job, and God's job
> alone, to judge men's souls; and in fact that he
> as a Christian is forbidden to try to do this.

OK.

As you can see, I have no trouble sitting in judgement because a) I don't see a God taking care of this; and b) I'm not concerned with souls or afterlife, but only what happens in the present and future in common society.

>
> > I see no demonstrable basis for the former--it
> > requires an external authority that has set out
> > immutable standards, and this would be a deity;
> in
> > any event, it's a centraized authority that
> never
> > amends the moral backbone. You seem to accept
> this
> > on faith and I don't.
>
> Yes. And to the extent that we were discussing
> the attitudes of ancient pagans, I believe they
> are more likely to be on my side than yours.

Maybe so.

> They
> believed that kings, princes and entire cultures
> were subject to the will of the gods, and that
> kings and princes and entire cultures might be
> punished by the gods for their transgressions.
> They did not think that morality was man-made, or
> that there was no higher authority than the king,
> the culture, the personal superego, or any other
> human entity.

Sounds fine to me. I'm not a pagan, after all.

Here's how I see what some may view as the struggle between good and evil. I can frame it in Freudian terminology most easily but this doesn't mean that I ascribe to his precepts.

Any rational individual has something like what Freud call the id, the ego, and the super-ego. The balance of these accounts for how the individual expresses him/herself in society.

Simply put, an infant is governed by id, while an ascetic is governed by super-ego. It takes tremendous will to be an ascetic, and none at all to be a screaming 2 year old.

For rational, social adults, one must wage war against the id part, using the super-ego to create an outward-facing ego for the rest of society to see. I work hard to make sure that I keep my id in check--I use the lofty precepts contained in my super-ego, and they are basically modeling the way my parents interfaced with the world. This could have been enhance by any positive religious training, but in my case wasn't. Hence, it's unneeded at this point.

I don't and haven't needed a reason beyond simply doing what I think is the "right" thing in any given situation. Some might need or want this, and some form of authority could supply this additional resolve. I don't much care *how* a person wins his own war against his animal nature--his id--only that he does so on a consistent basis.

The bad thing for me is that on encountering a person with insufficient control of his id, if I cannot avoid this person, I find that if I must deal with them at length, I have to adopt their behaviors simply to maintain parity, at least. And it's these times that I'm a supporter of organized religion. because I think they help great those who otherwise come up short in terms of self-restraint.

I don't think you need this external reason to believe, Platypus: I feel sure that you'd take care of your id in any event.

>
> > And "natural law" is simply
> > substituting the word "Nature" for "God".
>
> Feel free to have that argument with a fellow
> atheist who is NOT a moral nihilist. It's really
> not my fight.
>
> > I can see the elements of these behaviors in
> > myself and in others. With the aid of my early
> > parental training, I formed ethical habits that
> > permit me to survive/succeed without resorting
> to
> > any of this, and I'm happy about that fact.
>
> Well then, you have what I would call a "moral
> sense". You have a theory ("early parental
> training") explaining how this moral sense came to
> be.

Yes. I am not amoral.

> HP Lovecraft would have called his moral
> sense "aesthetic". But regardless of how your
> moral sense came to be, you have a philosophy that
> tells you that any moral perceptions you have are
> pure delusion, with no basis whatsoever in any
> external reality.

Yes.

> Nonetheless, you say you can
> and do follow your moral sense. And, in a
> meaningless world (as you suppose it to be), why
> not? And perhaps in doing so, you are a better
> person than many a devout Christian. That is not
> for me to judge.

I don't even think it's necessary, unless I begin to transgress.
>
> > But there are lots and lots of others who don't
> > feel so constrained, nor do they view
> themselves
> > as evil or even very wrong. Their biggest
> > transgression is that they got caught, as they
> see
> > it.
>
> So now you raise the thorny problem of how to
> judge the souls of men who may, through no fault
> of their own, have been born or raised with a
> deficient or inaccurate moral sense.

As I said before, another person's "reasons" sound a lot like "excuses". I don't care about any possible shortcomings in one's past so far as how they affect current behavior. I *do* care about how closely they hew to acceptable behavior in general society.

> But I've
> already told you the Christian answer. We DON'T
> judge his soul. We leave it to God to do that.
> The God that you don't believe exists.

Yes, OK.

>
> So my suggestion to you is that we not have these
> debates every time I mention a moral concept. I
> have answers to all your questions. They are just
> not answers that you can accept because you reject
> the concept of God (or gods, or karma). We will
> only go round and round in circles.

Yes, this is fine. Makes sense.

>
> > So what to do? I look for them and keep well
> away
> > from them, and the actual societal answer (for
> our
> > nominally lawful society) is to separate these
> > individuals, however many there are, from the
> rest
> > of society. They could be incarcerated,
> > euthanzied, or permanently isolated to live
> among
> > others like themselves.
>
> In an ancient or medieval world, prison was rarely
> a practical nor a humane solution.

Mostly, prisons were a place to restrain one until final punishment was administered.

You couldn't very well sentence a criminal to death the day after tomorrow, and expect him to present himself at that time.

> Exile,
> execution, or perhaps a good thrashing, were the
> only methods available.

Transportation was good.


> But when a man was
> executed for a crime, the idea was rarely to pass
> judgment on his soul, which the Christian religion
> forbids. Rather, the formula was often to have a
> ritual where God was asked to have mercy on the
> soul of the executed man. Criminal justice was a
> necessary but regrettable duty performed for the
> protection of the community.

Yes. The primary function of public punishment was to deter those who morally straddle the fence, and also to clearly connect certain prohibited behaviors with public demonstrations of disapproval.


>
> > All it takes is the will to do so, and adequate
> > power--power being the ultimate wildcard in
> human
> > society.
>
> Pagans did not believe that (human) power was the
> ultimate wildcard in human society.

Fine, but you're not talking to a pagan.

>
> > And here's the central irony: the instant that
> the
> > social misfits that I described have sufficient
> > power and will, it is *their* code (or
> non-code)
> > that will be the norm, and we'll be
> marginalized.
> > Sort of a kill-or-be killed, eat-or-be-eaten.
> >
> > In sense, Howard was right about all this.
>
> Not sure what you are saying here. Howard's work
> is somewhat amoral, from a purely Christian
> perspective, but I don't think he was a moral
> nihilist. I would say that overall, the evidence
> is very much against this idea.

I think he saw the same thing as I do, but preferred to combat it rather than to finesse it, as I do. This desire to combat wrong-doing (by one's own standards) creates a tension because the combat, itself, may be contrary to acceptable social behavior.

I mean, in my gut, I'd *like* to directly combat wrong-doers, but I need to find other, less emotionally fulfilling, but functionally satisfactory methods.

I guess this is responsible post-modernism, Platypus... :^(

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10 Feb 22 | 11:55AM by Sawfish.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kipling Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Obviously we are all still involved in the
> > controversy that arose in Heaven. God exists.
> > Darwinism is a joke. Next subject.
>
> I never mentioned Darwinism, nor said that it was
> a joke, nor even believe that it is a joke. I did
> not come here to discuss religion at all, except
> maybe in a historical sense. These issues keep
> coming up because I am not a moral nihilist, for
> which I make no apology. People don't like it
> when I use the word "evil", even as applies to a
> fictional character who chops women in half for no
> reason. They keep telling me there is no such
> thing as good and evil because God does not exist.
> And I keep answering that I believe in God, so
> let's agree to disagree on this, okay? And now
> Knygatin is once again screaming at me about the
> Jewish-Christian menace.

Platypus, if you had said anything about Darwin I would have quoted you first. Darwin is a joke. Watson and Crick's DNA discovery was in 1953. So there is the whole field of molecular biology, in recent times, and the fossil records as they have accumulated. These both indicate that the time needed for theorized macro-changes in animal bodies (as opposed to small changes over time, not disputed) is simply not available. Impossible.
The "controversy in Heaven" was the fall of Satan, and as I said, we are all involved in it and always have been.

jkh

Kipling Wrote:
> Platypus, if you had said anything about Darwin I
> would have quoted you first. Darwin is a joke.
> Watson and Crick's DNA discovery was in 1953. So
> there is the whole field of molecular biology, in
> recent times, and the fossil records as they have
> accumulated. These both indicate that the time
> needed for theorized macro-changes in animal
> bodies (as opposed to small changes over time, not
> disputed) is simply not available. Impossible.
> The "controversy in Heaven" was the fall of
> Satan, and as I said, we are all involved in it
> and always have been.

Fair enough. I was unsure as to what you were driving at.

Kipling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Platypus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Kipling Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Obviously we are all still involved in the
> > > controversy that arose in Heaven. God exists.
> > > Darwinism is a joke. Next subject.
> >
> > I never mentioned Darwinism, nor said that it
> was
> > a joke, nor even believe that it is a joke. I
> did
> > not come here to discuss religion at all,
> except
> > maybe in a historical sense. These issues keep
> > coming up because I am not a moral nihilist,
> for
> > which I make no apology. People don't like it
> > when I use the word "evil", even as applies to
> a
> > fictional character who chops women in half for
> no
> > reason. They keep telling me there is no such
> > thing as good and evil because God does not
> exist.
> > And I keep answering that I believe in God, so
> > let's agree to disagree on this, okay? And now
> > Knygatin is once again screaming at me about
> the
> > Jewish-Christian menace.
>
> Platypus, if you had said anything about Darwin I
> would have quoted you first. Darwin is a joke.
> Watson and Crick's DNA discovery was in 1953. So
> there is the whole field of molecular biology, in
> recent times, and the fossil records as they have
> accumulated. These both indicate that the time
> needed for theorized macro-changes in animal
> bodies (as opposed to small changes over time, not
> disputed) is simply not available. Impossible.
> The "controversy in Heaven" was the fall of
> Satan, and as I said, we are all involved in it
> and always have been.


Hi, Kipling.

This about Darwin is interesting. I would like to engage in a non-adversarial discussion. I am sure to learn something of value.

Let me outline in advance where I'll go in the proposed discussion: that the underlying mechanism of individuals of a given species surviving to reproduce with greater or lesser success in the aggregate derives from that individual's effectiveness in interfacing with its environment is valid. The sub-processes described by Darwin may be flawed, however.

Whew! I hope that's even a little clear...I will work on it more if requested.

So what I presently think is that Darwin believed the "progression" of a species was always as a result of minor incremental changes that allowed it to compete (and reproduce) more effectively than previous generations. I don't think he had much of an inking of what he actual physical mechanism for change was. I've since read more recent views that significant spontaneous mutation, which come in fits and starts rather than by slow incremental procession, is the primary agency by which species evolve.

To me, it matters little whether the initiator of species evolution comes slowly and incrementally, or in fits and starts, because overall, the modified individual must indeed be better suited to the environment in order to successfully reproduce.

Does this suit you? I've no objection in any case--it's how I learn is the reason I engage.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All of you,
stick to the site\forum topic, or take it else where.

The Management.

Good of you to intervene, Boyd. :) The heated emotional discussions, of diametrically opposite perspectives and world views, were about to break down into full scale war and anarchy.

As to "pulp trash" - quality supernatural fiction, weird tales, and fantasy creations, like C. A. Smith's writings, can not be accused of that. Not in my world. But since the medium they happened to published in were newsstand pulps, with commercial pressures to deliver shallow entertainment, their literary starting point was difficult. Occasionally these writings drifted into pulp, as in some of R. E. Howard's work. But we connoisseurs like to pick the raisins out of the cake.

I'd also like to say, that it is good to back up such reading with scientific, historic, and other serious studies, as it helps deepen and enrich one's appreciation.

Similarly, HOLLYWOOD (which is a more extremely hostile environment to creative freedom, than Weird Tales was) cannot be equated with independent film.

I have to confess, though, that's Boyd's sudden appearance seems to confirm the existence of an all-seeing deity...

;^)

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As to "pulp trash" - quality supernatural fiction,
> weird tales, and fantasy creations, like C. A.
> Smith's writings, can not be accused of that. Not
> in my world. But since the medium they happened to
> published in were newsstand pulps, with commercial
> pressures to deliver shallow entertainment, their
> literary starting point was difficult.
> Occasionally these writings drifted into pulp, as
> in some of R. E. Howard's work. But we
> connoisseurs like to pick the raisins out of the
> cake.

RE Howard, CA Smith, and HP Lovecraft, all wrote fiction for the pulp magazine market. Their stories "drifted into pulp" when they were accepted for publication by the pulp magazine editors. But we are all entitled to our opinions about specific authors and their specific works.

Someone else suggested that "Worms of the Earth", by Howard, was a very good weird tale, and I agreed. I'm not sure how this inspired the accusation that I "read pulp trash". But if you have a different opinion of "Worms of the Earth", that is fine.

I'm not sure I can pick a favorite weird tale from CAS's work. But the story that floats to the top of my mind at the moment is "The Tale of Satampra Zeiros".

REH and CAS are indirectly connected in that they were both part of the "Lovecraft circle". But this connection was mainly through Lovecraft, as far as I know. I'm not sure how much they had directly to do with each other, or what they thought of each other's work.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> RE Howard, CA Smith, and HP Lovecraft, all wrote
> fiction for the pulp magazine market. Their
> stories "drifted into pulp" when they were
> accepted for publication by the pulp magazine
> editors. ...

They had little other publishing options to turn to. I think in their case, along with a few more of their contemporaries, they outwitted the pulp magazine editors, and delivered better material than was expected or required for the market.

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have to confess, though, that's Boyd's sudden
> appearance seems to confirm the existence of an
> all-seeing deity...
>
> ;^)


It reminds me of a story by Arthur C. Clarke, in which enormous cosmic perspectives are suddenly compressed and focused on a tiny vital event, after which there is again complete silence, and another uneventful eternity comes to pass.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11 Feb 22 | 04:25PM by Knygatin.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I have to confess, though, that's Boyd's sudden
> > appearance seems to confirm the existence of
> an
> > all-seeing deity...
> >
> > ;^)
>
>
> It reminds me of a story by Arthur C. Clarke, in
> which enormous cosmic perspectives are suddenly
> compressed and focused on a tiny vital event,
> after which there is again complete silence, and
> another uneventful eternity comes to pass.

HAH!!!

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Knygatin Wrote:
> They had little other publishing options to turn
> to. I think in their case, along with a few more
> of their contemporaries, they outwitted the pulp
> magazine editors, and delivered better material
> than was expected or required for the market.

Maybe. But i think it is simpler to just realize that it is hard to tell the quality of a story by whether or not it is printed on cheap or expensive paper.

Quote:

Platypus
I'm not sure I can pick a favorite weird tale from CAS's work. But the story that floats to the top of my mind at the moment is "The Tale of Satampra Zeiros".

This is a good one, in my opinion.

I like the framing device of a sort of memoir concerning what became of the entity who took over Commorium after the unsuccessful attempts to execute him when he was in human form.

I think the same narrator has another story, Theft of the 39 Girdles, unless I'm mistaken. That story to me reads like Fritz Lieber in tone and mood.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is a good one, in my opinion.
>
> I like the framing device of a sort of memoir
> concerning what became of the entity who took over
> Commorium after the unsuccessful attempts to
> execute him when he was in human form.
>
> I think the same narrator has another story, Theft
> of the 39 Girdles, unless I'm mistaken. That story
> to me reads like Fritz Lieber in tone and mood.

Yes, THE THEFT OF THE THIRTY-NINE GIRDLES also features Satampra Zeiros, and I agree about the Fritz Lieber vibe. 39 Girdles is a late story (1958) by CAS, where he was less bitter and morbid. Another story from the same year is THE SYMPOSIUM OF THE GORGON, which I also like.

However, I think you are confusing THE TALE OF SATAMPRA ZERIOS with THE TESTAMENT OF ATHAMMAUS.

Quote:

Platypus
However, I think you are confusing THE TALE OF SATAMPRA ZERIOS with THE TESTAMENT OF ATHAMMAUS.

I thought that Satampra Zerios was telling about how he and another ne-er do well went back to Commorium, only a day away, to loot it of treasure, and got cornered in an abandoned temple by the gooey thing that the bandit executed by Anthammaus had become.

Both good stories!!!

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought that Satampra Zerios was telling about
> how he and another ne-er do well went back to
> Commorium, only a day away, to loot it of
> treasure, and got cornered in an abandoned temple
> by the gooey thing that the bandit executed by
> Anthammaus had become.

It had not previously occurred to me that there was a connection between the two entities. Perhaps I need a re-read.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I thought that Satampra Zerios was telling
> about
> > how he and another ne-er do well went back to
> > Commorium, only a day away, to loot it of
> > treasure, and got cornered in an abandoned
> temple
> > by the gooey thing that the bandit executed by
> > Anthammaus had become.
>
> It had not previously occurred to me that there
> was a connection between the two entities.
> Perhaps I need a re-read.

...or maybe me...

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~