Hi. I'm a first-time poster.

I first discovered Smith in 1970, as a student in San Diego. I have since read and re-read much of Smith's better-known prose. I am especially impressed with much of the content of his "Zothique" cycle, although my personal favorite is The Double Shadow, which, if I recall, is set in the Hyperborea cycle.

I really don't care about these realms, other than as settlings in which to place the stories. I am hugely impressed with the narrative devices he used, and DS is one of the most interesting.

He starts with the "message in a bottle" device. To the reader, this sets up the ability to have both the power and immediacy of a 1st person narrative, and the ability to have an unpredictable conclusion.

The story, told from the POV of wizard's apprectice, is filled with techniques of foreboding and doom. He also quite effectively emphasizes the complete surprise and consequent panic of the accomplished master (and the apprentice) at launching a series of events that they are totally unable to control. As the reader, we have to ride along with this, feeling the same sort of dread that we do when reading Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse 5, when, on the train with the other POWs, they are assured by an experienced GI (a former hobo) that he had endured much, much worse than the ordeal on the train. And the second morning, he was one of the dead. Thereafter, all hope goes out the window.

The most telling and clever device Smith uses, I think, is that of the inescapability of the impending, horrible, and unknown doom. He uses the obvious (and somewhat clumsy) device of having the storyteller being unable to *physically* escape, but he also uses a device I've *never* seen before (although I would be grateful to be enlightened if it is otherwise): that of having a daed man subject to the same terror as a living man. We are sufficently conditioned to believe that, as bad as it gets, any situation can be escaped through death, if we are willing--but in DS, this, too, is snatched away. Smith has as the catalyst for the final action a spell which 3 individuals are required (apparently) to promulgate: the wizard, a reanimated mummy, and the apprentice. These, each in turn, are seized by the ineluctible doom, and as the last in order, the apprentice has time to contemplate what is happening, and to record it, a la Poe in MS found in a Bottle.

I would be very interesting in discussing other aspects of just how Smith acheived such power--for, in spite of the inconsistent quality of some of his work (Vulthoom requires a lot of generousity on the part of the reader, and although I felt adequately rewarded by the "subterranean fantasmagoria" aspect of the story [like Lovecraft's ghostwritten stories for Zelia Bishop], not all readers would be so kind--he was a very powerful and unique artsit of the written word. One can see the influences of others in his work, but he came up with something that was extremely powerful and effective when he was at his best.

I look forward to many interesting discussions!

--Sawfish

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

Hiya Sawfish!

How would you consider his verse within considerations of the best of CAS. How would "Nero" rate in comparison to the best fiction, for example?

Personally, I see the entire body of poems as his greatest work, and a formidable prospect when coming to terms with him as a creative artist. This is, perhaps, why I've concentrated on the readings of individual poems, rather than essaying an overarching approach to him as a poet; possibly, too, knowing that I've not seen all of his poetic work has been a factor in that decision as well, so that writing piecemeal as I have is a way to fill in time before a full knowledge of his work is possible.

How do you see works, such as "The Double Shadow" in light of his fiction as a whole?

Phillip

Hello, Phillip!

I'd like to make clear that I have not read Smith's peripheral works, merely those that were readily available thru the Ballentine and Timescape anthologies. What I *have* done is read these many, many times. It would not be an exaggeration to say that I've read Dark Eidolon at least 60 times (twice a year for the last 30-35 years? Oh, yeah. At least.)

I have the basic English major's background in literary analysis, so I have--I hope--the vocabulary to discuss some of the aspects of his technique with others who are enthusiasts. Naturally, with a BA in English Lit. I soon had to move to another field and seldom get to use what I learned so long ago, but I feel that much of this will come back in these enjoyable discussions.

Nor have I ever been much of a poetry fan, and for the first 20 years that I read/re-read Smith in the Carter collections, buzzed right by the short poems that interspersed the stories, viewing them as minor nuisances, or at best, as placeholders between the stories.

...that is, until one day I actually read a couple of them (not near enough to hand for me to easily name) in Zothique, and was actually impressed with mood he set, using a form that I really don't digest well--sort of a "lactose intolerance" as it relates to verse, I guess.

So, OK. Let me begin to answer, now that I've bored you with introductions...

I've read that Smith's strongest area is poetry. I had also read (probably in Carter's Zothique intro) that he was a graphic artisit, as well, and thanks to this site, I've viewed some of his graphic art. In this flield he is a sort of primitivist, I'd guess, but this can ***really*** add strength to the conviction of his work, bearing in mind that when one prepares to view a portrait of an entity that patently cannot exist, the artist is starting with two strikes agains him. In my opinion. And yet, I was curiously moved by some of the images. They were quite evocative, very much like the evocative power of Kenneth Anger's short films. Nor sure whether it's a good idea to see more, or not...

I will certainly enjoy a gradual exposure to Smith's poetry. But since I am a "narrative prose" man, I'll want to take my time. I believe that there's a bookstore up here in Portland, OR, where I'll be able to get some of the harder-to-find volumes of verse. I'll need to take my time and shop; I'm not a collector, nor will I pay collector-level prices. I am *very* interested in the intangible content of an author's work, but negligibly interested in such items as signed volumes.

Anyway, I do look forward to reading some of his poetry and discussing it in depth with you and the others here. I can't contribute much, at present, to discussions of his poetry, however. Ironic that I have been impressed by a genre that is not thought to be his strongest, isn't it?

But as to The Double Shadow as it relates to his "cycle" fiction (that whihc relvolves around recurring fantastic settings), I just pulled it out of my hat as one of my favorites. It is a favorite because it is a ***very*** strong piece of work, thematically. Smith is very, very talented in a number of areas, in my opinion, but is at his strongest in exploring themes of man's comparative insignificant, or rather, the insignificance of any individual vis-a-vis the universe contained in his story. He is also one of the best authors of fantasic fiction--if not *the* best-- at characterization.

Other extremely strong stories that pop out of my head (again, most of my old Smith books are in a disorderly pile, beside my bed, *upstairs*, mixed in with other books that I use to help me quit thinking about 1' and 0's, before I can fall asleep): The Dark Eidolon; The Isle of the Torturers; Necromancy in Naat.

In each of these (and so very many more) there is a horribly ironic, yet satisfactory, resolution. Let me emphasize: the resolution is by no means traditionally acceptable, but still gives the reader *satisfaction*. Wow! No mean trick!

In each of the above, resolution is achieved, but in one case, after the death of both the protagnist and his betrothed (Necromancy)--and they *live* together happily ever after (!); in Isle, after releasing a disease that will kill *everyone*, including the protagonist (but, hey! that's all right, he's being activley tortured as a public *amusement*, and has been cruelly betrayed by his only hope). In DE, the protagonist is, I guess, the ruler Zotulla, although an argument might be made that it's actually the wizard with the Ahab complex (his name escapes me--wait! Namirrah). Anyway, if it's Zotulla, he finally, for once in his life (but sorta after he's been disembodied) bucks up and acts like a man, but if it's Namirrah, he is destroyed (and then some) by his own thirst for vengeance.

...and all of this seems emminently satisfactory, and even pre-ordained. This is *not* easy to pull off successfully.

Man! I can still remember reading the very first story, for the very first Smith collection that I ever owned: The Master of the Crabs. I wasn't really expecting much, having picked up the book on a whim (right next to Tolkien, you can see how I stubled over it) at the Mithras Bookstore in La Jolla, when my girlfriend of the moment and I went to see a Belmondo film in the adjoining theatre, the Unicorn. The story was so damned vivid, and in a way, comical, that it instantly appealed to me. Nor was I disappointed by the rest of the collection.

I can also recall that at that time, the late 60's, I was experimenting with marijuana a bit, as were many of my college contemporaries. I can tell you from first-hand experience that reading Smith while high is a lot like listening to Carmina Burana (sp?) while high: a unique experience not to be missed.

This also makes me wonder if Smith experienced the drug-induced state firsthand. Stories like Vulthoom and City of the Singing Flame, sure make it seem very possible, indeed.

I know I'm far from focused, but will soon engage in detailed discussion as soon as I feel my way into the way the group likes to discuss Smith's work. I do look forward to these discussions!

good evening: (long drawn out tones, eerie organ backgroung) -
delighted to have you on the board - from what you have written I take it that you are in your middle 50's or about ten years younger than myself. First I strongly recomment you read everything saved in this forum - not necessarily for its brilliance (though some of it is supberb), but to get a feel as to some of us are -- If you were in the SF area in the late 60's etc. then you and I are near contemporaries experientially, though not chronologically - did you see 2001 in cinerama from the front row? Though there at the time I did not fall prey to the foolishness of drug use - Clark had had the experience ala George Sterlings's crowd in the early teens of the century, and recognized it as drag on his creativity. His rejection of the use of drugs was part of what returned him absolutely to the hermitage at Auburn. As to the relation of his prose to his poetry,the little collection of his juvenize prose and poetry from my collection which i edited and Hippocampus published last year, should be read to give you insight into his history. CAS vast reading must be kept in mind by the critical reader. Double Shadow is a great work, and you are fortunate to have started there. Be assured, however, the riches of the poetic corpus are very considerable indeed. Plenty of it on this site to explore. Clark is somewhat unusual among writers in that the biography of his youth is so remarkably important to his life's work.
Existentially capturing in your mind the experiences of this isolated genius as a child perched on the edge of a 1000 foot canyon peering into the infinitude of space where the stars and planets are double their present visible size, and the blackness cave deep, and you will
begin to see the seamless fabric of his work.
You mention re-reading certain works - that is one of the amazing phenomena of CAS - he strangely calls you back again and again to re-read works that at first perusal may seem OK but not compelling -yet, lo and behold, there you are with that little story in your hand once again -- hmmmm -- what is afoot?

Dr. Farmer

Hiya Sawfish!

For a moment I was afraid you were going to include the verse in the peripheral works....;)

I've reread CAS' work far less than you have, but I still reread when I can, and when I have the inclination. Unfortunately, I have limited time, and I want to concentrate on certain projects that require extensive reading (such as the book I'm working o, and one I want to work on next year, dealing with the aesthetics of HPL). Now that you have the exposure, you've a lot more to read, and therefore the opportunity to have a clearer view of CAS' achievements.

I'm lacking in formal education in re. literary criticism; I'm self-taught, but I'm sure we can discuss works quite easily.

May I recommend, then, in regards to verse, that you definitely pick up The Last Oblivion for a start, since it is still in print, and freely accessible, before going on to out of print titles. You should endeavour, at the very least to get the collected poems when they will appear in a few years: you will have all his known verse that way.

I like some of CAS' artwork, not all, for their qualities as outsider art. Although the fact that he was self-taught is most evident when essaying the human form, it is when his art is concerned more with landscapes, and less with figures that I begin to appreciate this aspect of his creativeness more. In other aspects, my taste of art runs to the Symbolists, and early modernists, such as the Dadaists, Expressionists and Surrealists (though I have a soft spot for Pollock), and a fondness for J. K. Potter's photographs.

You should also consider Gavin Smith Bookseller; he's on here frequently, but you can also access him through the website's links to other pages. He should be able to get you the books you want, for a reasonable price. Since he's also a mate of mine, I like, when I can remember, to chuck business at him.

What you could do, if you're interested, is look at some of his poems, maybe in conjunction with the readings of them where available, that have been essayed. That way, you can get one idea of the repsponses to the poems; if you feel like it, feel free to essay your own readings, and submit them.

With the cosmic focus of CAS, as compared to HPL, how far would you say that CAS' greater facility at characterisation exhibits a correspondingly greater interest in individuals as a whole, and not a lessening of interest in the same basic concept of 'phenomena'?

Have you thought, in relation to "The Dark Eidolon" that the positions of Namirrah and Zotulla as protagonist and antagonist are blurred by the closeness of them morally, and how do you see this moral ambiguity affecting how we are 'meant' to respond to them as characters?

I can't remember the first CAS story I read (I can't remember yesterday, bar reading The Pact of the Fathers in one sitting, last night, whilst chowing down on Danish butter cookies. What I do remember is having a sense of excitement at the verbal felicities of the text, and at the textual level.

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]

calonlan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> good evening: (long drawn out tones, eerie organ
> backgroung) -
> delighted to have you on the board - from what you
> have written I take it that you are in your middle
> 50's or about ten years younger than myself.

Yes. I turn 57 tomorrow.

> First I strongly recomment you read everything
> saved in this forum - not necessarily for its
> brilliance (though some of it is supberb), but to
> get a feel as to some of us are -- If you were in
> the SF area in the late 60's etc. then you and I
> are near contemporaries experientially, though not
> chronologically - did you see 2001 in cinerama
> from the front row?

I lived in Marin county from 1965-68, and visited thereafter. My family still lives there.

> Though there at the time I
> did not fall prey to the foolishness of drug use -
> Clark had had the experience ala George
> Sterlings's crowd in the early teens of the
> century, and recognized it as drag on his
> creativity. His rejection of the use of drugs was
> part of what returned him absolutely to the
> hermitage at Auburn.

This is verty interesting! I only recently put 2 and 2 together when re-reading Vulthoom. The details of the exposure to the crystaline flowers were far too similar to opiates to be a coincidence, in my opinion.

In any event, I'm glad he didn't go far down that path; we'd be missing a lot of very good work!

> As to the relation of his
> prose to his poetry,the little collection of his
> juvenize prose and poetry from my collection which
> i edited and Hippocampus published last year,
> should be read to give you insight into his
> history. CAS vast reading must be kept in mind by
> the critical reader. Double Shadow is a great
> work, and you are fortunate to have started there.
> Be assured, however, the riches of the poetic
> corpus are very considerable indeed. Plenty of it
> on this site to explore. Clark is somewhat
> unusual among writers in that the biography of his
> youth is so remarkably important to his life's
> work.
> Existentially capturing in your mind the
> experiences of this isolated genius as a child
> perched on the edge of a 1000 foot canyon peering
> into the infinitude of space where the stars and
> planets are double their present visible size, and
> the blackness cave deep, and you will
> begin to see the seamless fabric of his work.

And yet, interestingly, he was experiencing what our neolytic ancestors experienced, and very possibly it was experiences such as these from which, as minkind's mind grew potent enough to imagine the universe, the spiritual/mystical realm was born.

So, really, he might be considered a connection the birth of spiritualism and mysticism.

> You mention re-reading certain works - that is
> one of the amazing phenomena of CAS - he strangely
> calls you back again and again to re-read works
> that at first perusal may seem OK but not
> compelling -yet, lo and behold, there you are with
> that little story in your hand once again -- hmmmm
> -- what is afoot?

I don't know. I can't explain it. I've read/re-read this stuff when I want to pull back form the world, for a sort of breather, and in all of this exposure his material has not suffered in the least. On the contrary, I keep seeing new stuff in it, like the drug state I found in Vulthoom and City of the Singing Flame.

Sawfish!

It's your tomorrow today here!

So happy birthday!

Sawfish is 57 today,
it's still not too late to have a partay!
so if he's the will, he'll sure get his way

with wine and song
and spirits strong

and laughter free
alike the sea

and happy hours
brilliant as flowers

family, friends
until the end

when the night is dark and people's heads
nod and they long to find their beds
and to Sawfish each of his guests has said

Happy Birthday!

*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]

Quote:

Clark had had the experience ala George Sterlings's crowd in the early teens of the century, and recognized it as drag on his creativity.

A drag on whose creativity, exactly? CAS is welcome to speak for himself on the matter, but not for others. "A Wine of Wizardry" would likely not have come into being had it not been for Sterling's experimentations with narcotics, and we ought not to underestimate the influence of laudanum on the entirety of 19th-Century poetry, from Shelley to Rimbaud. None of this is to advocate illegal drug use, of course, but is merely intended to retire the old saw that it is necessarily detrimental to creativity--a notion as misguided, to my mind, as the idea that drug use is necessarily a spur to creativity.

voleboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hiya Sawfish!
>
> For a moment I was afraid you were going to
> include the verse in the peripheral works....;)
>
> I've reread CAS' work far less than you have, but
> I still reread when I can, and when I have the
> inclination. Unfortunately, I have limited time,
> and I want to concentrate on certain projects that
> require extensive reading (such as the book I'm
> working o, and one I want to work on next year,
> dealing with the aesthetics of HPL). Now that you
> have the exposure, you've a lot more to read, and
> therefore the opportunity to have a clearer view
> of CAS' achievements.
>
> I'm lacking in formal education in re. literary
> criticism; I'm self-taught, but I'm sure we can
> discuss works quite easily.

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. ;^)


>
> May I recommend, then, in regards to verse, that
> you definitely pick up The Last Oblivion for a
> start, since it is still in print, and freely
> accessible, before going on to out of print
> titles. You should endeavour, at the very least
> to get the collected poems when they will appear
> in a few years: you will have all his known verse
> that way.
>
> I like some of CAS' artwork, not all, for their
> qualities as outsider art. Although the fact that
> he was self-taught is most evident when essaying
> the human form, it is when his art is concerned
> more with landscapes, and less with figures that I
> begin to appreciate this aspect of his
> creativeness more. In other aspects, my taste of
> art runs to the Symbolists, and early modernists,
> such as the Dadaists, Expressionists and
> Surrealists (though I have a soft spot for
> Pollock), and a fondness for J. K. Potter's
> photographs.
>
> You should also consider Gavin Smith Bookseller;
> he's on here frequently, but you can also access
> him through the website's links to other pages.
> He should be able to get you the books you want,
> for a reasonable price. Since he's also a mate of
> mine, I like, when I can remember, to chuck
> business at him.
>
> What you could do, if you're interested, is look
> at some of his poems, maybe in conjunction with
> the readings of them where available, that have
> been essayed. That way, you can get one idea of
> the repsponses to the poems; if you feel like it,
> feel free to essay your own readings, and submit
> them.

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. 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.

>
> With the cosmic focus of CAS, as compared to HPL,
> how far would you say that CAS' greater facility
> at characterisation exhibits a correspondingly
> greater interest in individuals as a whole, and
> not a lessening of interest in the same basic
> concept of 'phenomena'?

Very interesting question! Let me try to reframe. Then, if I have missed your intent, perhaps you could get me back on track.

I think what you are proposing is that, because Smith seems to spend more energy on characterization than Lovecraft does (I agree with this), there would be the obvious assumption that his *detailed and personal* vision of the cosmos as a setting might suffer. You imply that it does not suffer, and relative to how concrete it needs to be for his stories, I agree. It is quite different from Lovecraft's however, and Smith uses a less well-defined metaphysic.

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, and more importantly, neither can conceive of a cosmos ruled by a sentient power that shares a deeply human motivation. It sure puts them at odds with Christianity and much of traditional western culture, where divine beings rule the universe, and are really nothing more than empowered soap opera actors. Neither Lovecraft nor Smith come at the cosmos from this angle.

Since I have put them both in the same camp as regards the alienation of humanity from the cosmos, maybe we should differentiate them from each other.

Lovecraft has his tightly bound and largely malevolent pantheon of succeeding waves of "others". They are part of the natural universe, albeit the fartherst conceivable reaches of spacial/temporal/multidimensional reality. As such, "magic" does not actually exist, other than as a manifestation of the enhanced abilities of these entities, in the same sense that a Hoover vacuum cleaner is magic to an orangutan. So, Cthulu (sp?) can "sleep" in a dead/alive state on the bottom of the ocean until such a time as he awakens, and basically remakes the world the way he'd like to see it.

Among humans, knowledge of the existence of these previous dwellers is limited, and these folks are sort of a cultish cabal of smug insiders, although as near as I can tell, Cthulu would have little use for them, either, except in possibly aiding the beginnig of the transition. Once he's up-and-running, they're toast, for my money.

So, in my opinion, much of Lovecraft's central work is a sort of a paranoid's wet dream.

Smith's pantheon seems to have come into being much the same way, to the degree that he cares to explain the origins of his gods/demons, but they seem much less threatening, and much more whimsical. They are sort of slumming on Earth, having used up their travel money, and are unable to return home. While waiting for an interdimensional transfer of funds, they amuse themselves by interacting with the simple natives, and even lending them some of their "powers"--like allowing a pair of 4 year-olds to play with a loaded revolver--which look to us like "magic". And that's about as far as Smith seeks to explain this.

Nor do I think that Smith's collection of gods/demons are particualrly malign. They are less alien than Lovecraft's (truly alien). Reading a story like The Seven Geases takes us on a tour of Smith's daemonium, and it's rather 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.

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. 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. They are a threat to all of mankind, in general, but bear each individual no specific ill will, just as when I trap a mouse, I have no particular ill will toward that mouse (usually), but would like to be rid of all mice, once an for all.

Smith's, on the otherhand, are more human, and their motivations are more "knowable": Thasaidon has an axe to grind with Namirrah, Ulua gets her comeupance (along with the rest of the country--is it Tasuun?), etc.

Of course, you also have the White Worm.

I'll stop here with an orthogonal tack: does anyone else think that Smith had one helluva sense of humor? I read stuff like Coming of the White Worm (the speculation among the magicans about where the missing members of the group actually were), and Vintage From Atlantis ("Our captain, as it turned out, was a learned man."), and parts of it can make me laugh out loud. I mean, these are bits of comic relief or irony, but they are very, very absurd and funny!

Dr. F, did CAS like to joke around in his social discourse?

>
> Have you thought, in relation to "The Dark
> Eidolon" that the positions of Namirrah and
> Zotulla as protagonist and antagonist are blurred
> by the closeness of them morally, and how do you
> see this moral ambiguity affecting how we are
> 'meant' to respond to them as characters?

Yes, and it's one of the things I like best about Smith and Lovecraft: no heroic figures.

You can get *relatively* heroic behavior, on occasion (the husband in The Charnel God), but really, they are just oridnary men motivated to do things they wouldn't, otherwise. And this is quite realistic, and is probably the true nature of heroism.

And, for the most part, Lovecraft has no heroes, either. Typically, things *happen* to a main character, and we get to watch. Howard, on the other hand, has more super-heroes than you can shake a stick at, and it is pretty evident that he is using these characters as alter egos. I have never been able to connect with such points of view, so the main admiration I can generate for Howard's heroic stuff is to the degree that he can pastiche (is that actually a verb? please pardon me!) the northern European saga tradition. And this ability does give a certain powerful texture to his work, but that's about it, as far as I can see.

As to Zotulla and Namirrah, both are HUGELY flawed characters. And so is Namirrah's main squeeze, Obexah, the only other character in the story with any real presence. Where else but Smith (or Patricia Highsmith) are you going to get a story where the main characters can be distinguished, morally, by the degree of direct involvement with some really attrocious acts?

Great stuff! This is why I've read it tens of times.

>
> I can't remember the first CAS story I read (I
> can't remember yesterday, bar reading The Pact of
> the Fathers in one sitting, last night, whilst
> chowing down on Danish butter cookies. What I do
> remember is having a sense of excitement at the
> verbal felicities of the text, and at the textual
> level.

I'm thinking that a neat thing about Smith--and much of this passed over my head on the first few readings--is that his better work can be infinitely (almost) parsed, and still yield more layers of meaning/nuance simply because he chooses a vocabulary that can be interpretted both for quick, superficial meaning (the basic pulp market, I suspect), and, on repeated reading, much, much more *coherent* detail. Since I just read Dark Eidolon a day or two ago, I use it as an example.

The "entertainment" that Namirrah gets up for the benefit of Zotulla can read read fairly quickly, and it makes for an impressionistic phatasmagoria that is quite effective; but if you parse it slowly, and allow the imagery to form concretely in your mind--and the implication of the precise imagery--it is quite nuanced and visual. Namirrah is served by his father's mummy, on whose hand is a ring identical to his own. This is how his attention is intially drawn to his "waitperson". Can't you just "see" that as a cinematic moment? Of course, Namirrah is not only chagrinned by the obvious spectacle of being served by the re-animated corpse of his father (bad enough!), but also because he ascended to the throne by the double crime of regicide/paricide.

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?

Thanks! And it's in my favorite form, too: verse!

;^)

voleboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish!
>
> It's your tomorrow today here!
>
> So happy birthday!
>
> Sawfish is 57 today,
> it's still not too late to have a partay!
> so if he's the will, he'll sure get his way
>
> with wine and song
> and spirits strong
>
> and laughter free
> alike the sea
>
> and happy hours
> brilliant as flowers
>
> family, friends
> until the end
>
> when the night is dark and people's heads
> nod and they long to find their beds
> and to Sawfish each of his guests has said
>
> Happy Birthday!
>
> "Vole (noun): rodent with an interesting
> population dynamic, and a tendency to giggle at
> sporrans. Best before 06/06/2066."
>
> *Visit my homepage:

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]

Quote:

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.

Excuse me for butting in again, but CAS himself offers a wonderful riposte to this in his letter to George Sterling. Its wisdom is both germane and inexhaustible:

"Well, let it [American civilization] go with the rest, with these 'tribes of slaves and Kings' that have kept the world's dust astir for awhile. It won't affect the 'cost of living' in the worlds around Antares and Canopus, I suppose--this collapse of a pseudo-republic, built mostly of paper, and mortared with ink. They won't even know about it in the other planets of this system, unless they have rather better telescopes than ours. It seems of importance here, though; I suppose that the social upheavals of the ant-hill are of importance to the ants, too. But all colors will look alike in the night of Death".

I suppose, for what it's worth, you can see where I stand in relation to Humanism! Lol.

I think the upheavals of the ant-hill are of interest to the anteater as well. For the most part, the petty affairs of humanity interest me not; at most they amuse me, so I dip into them when I need amusement.

Of course, I've a differing stance on politics. Australia is different in a fundamental way: we have to vote not are able to vote if we got off our arse at the time. Hence I look first and foremost at environmental issues before a more pragmatic approach of who to vote for at any given time. I also look at arts issues, particularly funding. That aspect of the ant-hill is closer to my underlying interests of life for art's sake.

P


*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]

voleboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hiya Sawfish!
>
> You Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

>> 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.

OK. Good stuff.

It doesn't appear to me that Lovecraft *is* interested in individuals, and this shows in his lack of social comment and lack of humorous content. Again, from Dark Eidolon, Smith has Obexah, the favored concubine of Zotulla, wonder what Namirrah would be like in bed. This guy just built a huge palace in a field, next to Zotulla's palace, has terroized the court with phantom stallions for three straight nights, and when the invitation arrives (by titanic skeleton) to go to Namirrah's palace for a little get-together, she wonders "what he is like in his intercourse with women."

This is where Lovecraft and Smith differ the most widely. There is lots and lots of comment on the social condition in Smith, and he's really pretty good at it. I gives me additional enjoyment that is lacking in Lovecraft.

Lovecraft has his own strengths, however, and I have read him many many times for escape. Did you kmow that there is a Lovecraft Film Festival?

[www.hplfilmfestival.com]

That's right: it comes to arthouses, and I missed it again for the third straight year. As soon as my daughter can handle this, I'll take her. She's 7 now, and doesn't need to be exposed to Lovecraft just yet, I think. :^)

I did, however, read Smith's The Weird of Avoosl Vorquam (sp?) aloud to her. Like a lot of Smith's stuff, it's a cautionary tale--lots of his stuff is really sophisticated fairy tales, and is suitable for kids, if you use careful judgement. You can't read stuff like Witchcraft of Ulua or Isle of the Torturers to kids, but some stuff is OK. And the ***language**** is superb! What a great way to introduce the concept of a highly enriched descriptive vocabulary!


<SNIP>

>
> > 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.

I'm using the term "malevolent" from the POV of humanity, not an objecvtive POV somewhere in the cosmos. It seems pretty clear that there would be no room for humanity is Chtulu is elected., and to me, that is malevolent.

However, At the Mountains of Madness is probably my favorite Lovecraft story, using his concept of telescoping realities or depths to what is perceived as reality. He does this in a concrete way when he has the explorers discover the first uncharted mountain range, then, when we get used to the idea of this previously unknown alien influence, go over the plateau to the higher range, with yet more bad news. The best that can be said is that, compared to the "deep race" (I can no longer remember the details, or names), the first race encountered seemed to share some human motivations. Up until finding the second range, however, and seeing just how bad things could be, I recall the explorers as feeling pretty threatened by the Old Ones.

Really, there's not much good news in Lovecraft.

>
> 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.

Don't know much about Derleth. I think I tried reading a few of his works and they didn't connect in any sense.

><SNIP>


>
> 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.

Yep. And this makes them closer to humans, because as far as I can tell, the alien races in Lovecraft don't indulge in "amusements" per se. They are really much more alien, pretty much lacking a sense of humor, or a need for hobbies, or anthing like that.




--Sawfish

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

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> It doesn't appear to me that Lovecraft *is*
> interested in individuals, and this shows in his
> lack of social comment and lack of humorous
> content.

It also shows in his relatively colourless characterisation. The people seem, for the most part, little more than ciphers, enigmas with the occasional flavouring from himself.

> Again, from Dark Eidolon, Smith has
> Obexah, the favored concubine of Zotulla, wonder
> what Namirrah would be like in bed.

Exactly: that's the sort of detail which, grotesque as it is, and humourous, that delineates her as an individual. I'm sure HPL would get the collywobbles before contemplating a like reaction from one of his characters.

> There is lots and lots of comment on the
> social condition in Smith, and he's really pretty
> good at it.

I see it more as a greater degree of insight in the characters as individuals, with individual responses and desires. The Zothique characters strike me as fundamentally earthier, more interested in wine, women and song, than any of HPL's characters, "The Tomb" included.

> Did you kmow that there is a Lovecraft Film Festival?
>
Yes I did; I've known for about a year or so now. A friend reminded me of it, since he attended it and told me via email how long he was to be away.
>
>
> She's 7 now, and doesn't need to be exposed to Lovecraft
> just yet, I think. :^)
>
I was about ten or eleven when I first read him, so you may consider it time soon. Maybe start off with something like "The Quest or Iranon".

> What a great way to introduce the concept of a highly
> enriched descriptive vocabulary!
>
Yes, I agree totally. If only someone had read him to me....

> I'm using the term "malevolent" from the POV of
> humanity, not an objecvtive POV somewhere in the
> cosmos. It seems pretty clear that there would be
> no room for humanity is Chtulu is elected., and to
> me, that is malevolent.
>
Speaking as a human, I still wouldn't call them malevolent. Inimical, yes, but they lack that emotion against us. They are, as I sorta remember HPL saying, akin to elephants and ants; they don't care about us, one way or another, but if they step on us we remain stepped upon. That was my way of expressing it. I mean, we don't hate ants when we step on them,we just step on them, the way meteors don't deliberately seek us out, they just hit the planet. It's about as useful to say Cthulhu hates us as it is to sat a lump of iron or rock hates us.


> compared to the "deep race" (I can no longer remember the
> details, or names), the first race encountered seemed to share
> some human motivations.

Yes, I agree there is that sense of kinship between humans and the old ones, against humans and shoggoths.

> as far as I can tell, the alien races in Lovecraft
> don't indulge in "amusements" per se. They are
> really much more alien, pretty much lacking a
> sense of humor, or a need for hobbies, or anthing
> like that.
>
Yes, but in noting that, there is humour evident. Take the following passage from At the Mountains of Madnes: "It interested us to see in some of the very last and most decadent sculptures a shambling primative mammal, used sometimes for food and sometimes as an amusing buffoon by the land dwellers, whose vaguely simian and human foreshadowings were unmistakeable." In other words, humans were initially bred for the old ones' bread and circuses, if you'll forgive the pun.

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]