Hiya Sawfish!
You Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Yeah, well I've forgotten most of the vocabulary
> of critical methodology, so I was really only
> offering up a pre-emptive excuse for my lack of
> depth of insight. ;^)
>
But depth of insight is entirely independent of the critical apparatus needed to jargonise it most efficaciously.
That is, you can thunk the thunk and still not speak like a wanker.
>
> I will want to read his work without any
> preconceived ideas. I will want to then look at
> the analyses of others. That's what I'm trying for
> here, with his prose.
By all means. When it comes time, when you want to look at his verse more closely, the readings will, I hope, be there once you feel like looking at them.
> I've read *no* analyses, and formed my own opinions, over a
> period of *years*. Now's the time to discuss my impressions with
> others who share my enthusiasm.
I have enjoyed reading others' analyses shortly after reading a work, and allowing myself the opportunity of developing a wider reaction to the poem that may or may not incorporate reactions from the analysis.
> Very interesting question! Let me try to reframe.
> Then, if I have missed your intent, perhaps you
> could get me back on track.
>
Not quite the reaction I was hoping for...; I was asking more to what degree does the increased interest in characterisation reflect a corresponding interest in individuals, compared to HPL's disinterest compared to the phenomena at hand.
> Did I get the intent of your question? Please get
> me back on track if not. If I *did* get it right,
> here's a bit more along that line.
>
> Both Lovecraft and Smith share the idea that man
> is comparatively insignificant as related to the
> cosmos. This means that neither is a humanist,
It is possible to be a humanist, and share the cosmic outlook. In this sense, I am a humanist for, despite humanity's cosmic insignificence, on the human scale we're pretty important to ourselves. Mind you, on the global level the world is vastly more important than us; since it keeps us alive, therefore, the environment is of greater concern than any petty human 'need' whether that be for more backyards or more money.
> Lovecraft has his tightly bound and largely
> malevolent pantheon of succeeding waves of
> "others".
I'm not so convinced that we can call those races malevolent. He argues that the old one, in
At the Mountains of Madness acted perhaps as we should have in the circumstances, and in the end postulates that the two races of being were alike in fundamental ways. The deep ones aren'y malevolent, because they are stated as capable of wiping us out if they wnated to; they haven't done so, therefore they're unconcerned with us... at present. The mi-go seem hostile, but such is only small-scale, and to those working against their interests. This later race, though, is a 'decadent' one, and therefore less disinterested than the Old Ones. The Great Race is motivated more by scientific curiosity than malevolence. There are also the hardy coleptorous race that will succeed us, and be our superiors... these are not given the concept of malevolence.
In short, I see the malevolence as a function of the Derlethian mythos, and not the Lovecraftian one. His is more concerned with the slow history of rise and falls of civilisations, as a natural law, derived in part from a reading of Sprengler.
> a Hoover vacuum cleaner is magic to an orangutan.
It may be magic, but it still sucks...:)
> Smith's pantheon ... are sort of slumming on Earth,
> having used up their travel money, and are unable
> to return home.
I se them as equally unconcerned with humans, viewing them only as a divertissiment, an amusement, and naught else. In this, we're essentially agreed.
> The Seven Geases [is] ... like a tourguide pointing
> out the homes of the stars in Hollywood in that in
> both cases the subjects are
> "larger than life" and have colorful and
> unfathomable habits and motivations.
>
I am amused by the concept of Tom Cruise's unfathomable habits and motivations... perhaps that's the Scientologist in him....:)
> Lovecraft's "others" are likely to want to wipe
> out humankind merely for the sake of creating more
> space (or perhaps a more salutory environment--an
> ultra-mundane country club?)) for themselves.
I think they're more likely to step on us the way we step on dog turds... did I tred in something? *sniff, sniff*
> They may also have scores to even with others of their
> ilk, and humankind comes pretty far down on their
> list of priorities, perhaps their equivalent of
> flossing a pet cat.
Or transfrerring a woodlouse from one place to another in times of floods... would you do that?
> I have long thought that Smith would have been a
> profoundly good screenwriter, since he seems to
> "see" the entire scene he is describing, and
> conveys it in very visual terms. What do you
> think?
>
I think so, if he proved also to be the director of the piece. I can easily imagine a filmed version of "The Dark Eidolon", with, maybe John Malcovitch and Geoffrey Rush.
Ciao!
Phillip
*Author of
Strange Gardens [
www.lulu.com]
*Editor of
Calenture: a Journal of Studies in Speculative Verse [
calenture.fcpages.com]
*Visit my homepage: [
voleboy.freewebpages.org]