My, my, my -- just finished reading these lengthy epistles, and, dear me, why -
why - it's like Pentecost! there is, at any rate, a mighty rushing of wind.

Keep it up boys.
Dr. F

Are you sure it's not the beans I been eatin'?

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]

Quote:

I think the upheavals of the ant-hill are of interest to the anteater as well.

Lol! Indeed, although I'm not aware of any creature that bears such a relation to humans. I suppose that that's where Cthulhu and company figure into the picture. One can hope, I suppose....

Quote:

I see it more as a greater degree of [CAS's] 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.

I think that it's less a question of lack of insight on Lovecraft's part than it is lack of interest. Lovecraft realized that, in a mass society, genuine individuals are almost non-existent. Even then, though, it is true that he did not feel the need to flesh out his professors and dreamers to any great extent. CAS felt similarly, I think, and therefore always had as protagonists individuals who were exceptional from the outset (poets, royalty, and magicians, on the one hand, and socially marginal individuals, on the other). Although I agree that CAS had somewhat more interest and skill in characterization than did Lovecraft, I also think that, before we get too carried away with a portrait of CAS as the Henry James of Weird Tales, we should recall his own words on the subject of characterization in weird fiction, composed at the height of his own "fiction-writing campaign":

"In a tale of the highest imaginative horror, the main object is the creation of a supernatural, extra-human atmosphere; the real actors are the terrible arcanic forces, the esoteric cosmic malignities; and the element of human character, if one is to achieve the highest, most objective artistry, is properly somewhat subordinated in a tale of ordinary and natural happenings. One is depicting things, powers and conditions that are beyond humanity; therefore, artistically speaking, the main accent is on these things, powers and conditions".

[from "The Tale of Macrocosmic Horror"]

I evaluate the success of both Lovecraft's and CAS's weird fiction by how well they achieve the above-stated aims, and I consider Lovecraft the superior weirdist precisely because he adheres more closely and consistently with the guidelines that CAS outlines, above.

Aside: Regarding CAS's more "earthy" interests and pursuits, I recall a letter from Lovecraft to someone or other saying, in essence, that he could admit CAS as a social equal, but that he could not help feeling superior to those who carried on with women as CAS did. Lovecraft found an excessive interest in "wine, women, and song"*, be it in life or in literature, to be somewhat vulgar, and, for what little it's worth, I rather agree with him!

*The contemporary equivalent of this charmingly antiquated chestnut would be "sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll". Plus ca change....

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the upheavals of the ant-hill are of
> interest to the anteater as well.
>
> Lol! Indeed, although I'm not aware of any
> creature that bears such a relation to humans. I
> suppose that that's where Cthulhu and company
> figure into the picture. One can hope, I
> suppose....
>
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.
>
> I think that it's less a question of lack of
> insight on Lovecraft's part than it is lack of
> interest. Lovecraft realized that, in a mass
> society, genuine individuals are almost
> non-existent. Even then, though, it is true that
> he did not feel the need to flesh out his
> professors and dreamers to any great extent. CAS
> felt similarly, I think, and therefore always had
> as protagonists individuals who were exceptional
> from the outset (poets, royalty, and magicians, on
> the one hand, and socially marginal individuals,
> on the other). Although I agree that CAS had
> somewhat more interest and skill in
> characterization than did Lovecraft, I also think
> that, before we get too carried away with a
> portrait of CAS as the Henry James of Weird Tales,
> we should recall his own words on the subject of
> characterization in weird fiction, composed at the
> height of his own "fiction-writing campaign":
>
> "In a tale of the highest imaginative horror, the
> main object is the creation of a supernatural,
> extra-human atmosphere; the real actors are the
> terrible arcanic forces, the esoteric cosmic
> malignities; and the element of human character,
> if one is to achieve the highest, most objective
> artistry, is properly somewhat subordinated in a
> tale of ordinary and natural happenings. One is
> depicting things, powers and conditions that are
> beyond humanity; therefore, artistically speaking,
> the main accent is on these things, powers and
> conditions".
>

I don't think that this is inconsistent with the premise that Smith creates better characterization than Lovecraft.

What I was comparing was the relative degree of attention to characterization, within the palette of the authors' writing abilities, to characterization, when comparing Smith and Lovecraft.

But since you raised the point, within the confines of widely read authors of fantastic short fiction, I *do* think that Smith is "the Henry James of weird fiction"--or damned close to it.

Who else would you say does characterization in short, weird fiction better?

>
>
> I evaluate the success of both Lovecraft's and
> CAS's weird fiction by how well they achieve the
> above-stated aims, and I consider Lovecraft the
> superior weirdist precisely because he adheres
> more closely and consistently with the guidelines
> that CAS outlines, above.

Lovecraft creates a detailed metaphysic that seemed alive to him. There is no one else that actually seemed to have "lived" within his own pantheon to the degree that Lovecraft did--and it shows in the conviction and consistency of his work.

I *never* get the feeling that Lovecraft is going thru the motions to get a paycheck, and I sometimes do with Smith's lesser work, especially in what passes as SF.

But I am more richly rewarded by the variety: irony, humor, romanticism, and nuance in Smith's work. He is a supremely ironic, and somewhat cynical, storyteller. Not the case with Lovecraft. His work was his calling, and he approached it with the same fervid conviction that a Mormon youth approaches his "mission". That Lovecraft clearly and consistently "sees" the world of his own creation holds within it its primary weakness: there is little suspense in Lovecraft, other than in the details of his revelation of his cosmos. This might best be summed up, irreverently, by the "suspense" the reader might feel over the question "Does Cthulu's head have 7, or 8, tentacles?"

When Lovecraft chooses to depart from his mythos, as in The High HOuse in the Mist, he is more like Dunsany; in The Shuttered Room, he is more of a traditionalist, as is Howard in Pigeons From Hell.

>
> Aside: Regarding CAS's more "earthy" interests and
> pursuits, I recall a letter from Lovecraft to
> someone or other saying, in essence, that he could
> admit CAS as a social equal, but that he could not
> help feeling superior to those who carried on with
> women as CAS did. Lovecraft found an excessive
> interest in "wine, women, and song"*, be it in
> life or in literature, to be somewhat vulgar, and,
> for what little it's worth, I rather agree with
> him!

Yeah, well I've never felt that "wine, women, and song" were in the front part of Smith stories (a few exceptions--Black Abbot of Puthuum), as they are in some other Sword & Sorcery stories. At his best, most heartfelt and convincing when dealing with the opposite sex, Smith seems to be a romantic, with a lot of romantic ideals. To his credit, he sometimes purpsoely crushes these stereotypes before our eyes, as in The Last Incantation.

I have never felt that there is, or should be, a sort of competiton between Lovecraft and Smith. They tread the same ground, but to differing musical accompanyment. Lovecraft consistently impresses me with his ability to take me to *his* particular reality; Smith amuses me and throws me more curves. He has the wistful, romantic side that Lovecraft lacks, but Lovecraft has all the convinction in the world when writing, and thru this can create an immediacy that allows what would, by most normal standards, be nonsense, become believable for the reader.

>
> *The contemporary equivalent of this charmingly
> antiquated chestnut would be "sex, drugs, and rock
> 'n' roll". Plus ca change....

Chacun a son gout...






--Sawfish

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

Quote:

I don't think that this is inconsistent with the premise that Smith creates better characterization than Lovecraft.

Not at all, but, as I suggested, before lauding CAS too much in this regard, it's wise, I think, to recall his views on the subject as a whole. I do understand your point, though.

Quote:

Who else would you say does characterization in short, weird fiction better?

Almost anyone, from Machen to Buchan, as well as both Jameses, but Walter de la Mare comes most quickly to mind. As one who is also not terribly interested in humans and in human characterization, psychology, and the like, I'm glad of that fact, though!

Quote:

That Lovecraft clearly and consistently "sees" the world of his own creation holds within it its primary weakness: there is little suspense in Lovecraft, other than in the details of his revelation of his cosmos. This might best be summed up, irreverently, by the "suspense" the reader might feel over the question "Does Cthulu's head have 7, or 8, tentacles?"

I'm afraid that I don't think that this is a fair assessment of Lovecraft's aims. In his fiction, he is trying to build horror from a gradual revelation of soul-shattering violations of the natural order. One can, of course, debate how well Lovecraft succeeds in this aim, but the creation of "suspense" was really not his goal. Thus, it is less a matter of "weakness" than of taste. Chacun a son gout, as you say in another context....

I intended the "wine, women, and song" aside as merely an indicator of personal differences that also manifest in HPL's and CAS's respective fiction.

Quote:

I have never felt that there is, or should be, a sort of competiton between Lovecraft and Smith.

Nor do I. I certainly hope that nothing that I've written here has given the impression that I do.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think that this is inconsistent with the
> premise that Smith creates better characterization
> than Lovecraft.
>
> Not at all, but, as I suggested, before lauding
> CAS too much in this regard, it's wise, I think,
> to recall his views on the subject as a whole. I
> do understand your point, though.
>
Who else would you say does characterization in
> short, weird fiction better?
>
> Almost anyone, from Machen to Buchan, as well as
> both Jameses, but Walter de la Mare comes most
> quickly to mind. As one who is also not terribly
> interested in humans and in human
> characterization, psychology, and the like, I'm
> glad of that fact, though!

Machen and de la Mare I can recall off of the top of my head--and I am now searching for a short story by de la Mare that recently impressed me--I'll use your suggestions as the beginning of a new reading list.

Boy, I'm trying hard to remember! I'm thinking that it was a very traditional tale of the supernatural, but that there were certain elements that really made me sit up and take notice.

Machen, for some reason, has never clicked with me.

>
That Lovecraft clearly and consistently "sees"
> the world of his own creation holds within it its
> primary weakness: there is little suspense in
> Lovecraft, other than in the details of his
> revelation of his cosmos. This might best be
> summed up, irreverently, by the "suspense" the
> reader might feel over the question "Does Cthulu's
> head have 7, or 8, tentacles?"
>
> I'm afraid that I don't think that this is a fair
> assessment of Lovecraft's aims. In his fiction, he
> is trying to build horror from a gradual
> revelation of soul-shattering violations of the
> natural order. One can, of course, debate how well
> Lovecraft succeeds in this aim, but the creation
> of "suspense" was really not his goal. Thus, it is
> less a matter of "weakness" than of taste. Chacun
> a son gout, as you say in another context....

This is true, but it necessarily limits his work. I am not suggesting that Lovecraft's work is, in any substantive way, lessened *in those areas that he chooses to exercise his artistry*, but rather that he limits those areas of artistry.

Sort of like, Bogart was a very good modern actor, but not much as a song-and-dance man, where as Cagney...

And, if you don't care for song and dance, it wouldn't matter much.

>
> I intended the "wine, women, and song" aside as
> merely an indicator of personal differences that
> also manifest in HPL's and CAS's respective
> fiction.
>
I have never felt that there is, or should be, a
> sort of competiton between Lovecraft and Smith.
>
> Nor do I. I certainly hope that nothing that I've
> written here has given the impression that I
> do.
>

When coming newly to a mail list or discussion group, it's a good idea to get this out of the way early on. As you may have noticed, I posted here for the first time about a week ago.

Quote:

Machen and de la Mare I can recall off of the top of my head--and I am now searching for a short story by de la Mare that recently impressed me--I'll use your suggestions as the beginning of a new reading list.

Another weirdist who excels in characterization is Robert Aickman.

Quote:

This is true, but it necessarily limits his work. I am not suggesting that Lovecraft's work is, in any substantive way, lessened *in those areas that he chooses to exercise his artistry*, but rather that he limits those areas of artistry.
Sort of like, Bogart was a very good modern actor, but not much as a song-and-dance man, where as Cagney...

Hmmm. Lovecraft's "Arthur Jermyn", "The Outsider", and "The Colour Out of Space"--to take three random examples--are very different from one another in tone, theme, and atmosphere. Lovecraft's artistry, I think, is not nearly so limited as your analogy suggests. It's time, though, for us to agree to disagree here, as an extended discussion of Lovecraft by himself is off topic both for this forum and this thread

Quote:

> I intended the "wine, women, and song" aside as
> merely an indicator of personal differences that
> also manifest in HPL's and CAS's respective
> fiction.

> I have never felt that there is, or should be, a
> sort of competiton between Lovecraft and Smith.

> Nor do I. I certainly hope that nothing that I've
> written here has given the impression that I
> do.


When coming newly to a mail list or discussion group, it's a good idea to get this out of the way early on. As you may have noticed, I posted here for the first time about a week ago.

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I, too, wanted to clarify that there isn't--or shouldn't be--any sort of rivalry between CAS and HPL, and that I've never implied anything of the sort. For my taste, HPL was the better fictioneer, and CAS not only much the greater poet, but also the finest American poet of the Twentieth Century. Each is quite secure upon his own mountain top.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Machen and de la Mare I can recall off of the top
> of my head--and I am now searching for a short
> story by de la Mare that recently impressed
> me--I'll use your suggestions as the beginning of
> a new reading list.
>
> Another weirdist who excels in characterization is
> Robert Aickman.

Again, the name is familiar, and if I were to be forced to bet, I'd bet heavily that I have read works by Aichman, but if so, only in the short story form. That's where I spend my time in the fantasic genre.

Some years back, I liked to read anthologies from "Whispers". I found some very interesting modern practitioners of what is the modern manifestation of "weird fiction". Again, I'd have to dig them out, but several were wuite impressive.

E.g., have you read Sticks? Did you see The Blair Witch Porject? The instant I saw the stick-and-string devices, I thought: "Ohhhh. I'll betcha..."

>
This is true, but it necessarily limits his work.
> I am not suggesting that Lovecraft's work is, in
> any substantive way, lessened *in those areas that
> he chooses to exercise his artistry*, but rather
> that he limits those areas of artistry.
>
> Sort of like, Bogart was a very good modern actor,
> but not much as a song-and-dance man, where as
> Cagney...
>
> Hmmm. Lovecraft's "Arthur Jermyn", "The Outsider",
> and "The Colour Out of Space"--to take three
> random examples--are very different from one
> another in tone, theme, and atmosphere.

Off of the top of my head, I would say that Lovecraft had at least three distinct phases, or stylistic niches: the mythos, as represented by At the Mountains of Madness (this would include all stories that are unlain by the implied existence of the same pantheon, like Shadow Over Innsmouth); "traditionalist" stories--and the one I like the best (though not necessarily the "best" one) concerns a traveller who seeks shelter in a farmhouse and is "entertained" by an ancient rustic; and work that resembles Dunsany a lot, like Quest of Iranon, or High House in the Mist.

I would be interested in your views on this.

> Lovecraft's artistry, I think, is not nearly so
> limited as your analogy suggests. It's time,
> though, for us to agree to disagree here, as an
> extended discussion of Lovecraft by himself is off
> topic both for this forum and this thread

Can you recommend a Lovecraft forum? I have long held some distinct views on LOvecraft's work, and I would enjoy discussing them.

>
> > I intended the "wine, women, and song" aside
> as
> > merely an indicator of personal differences
> that
> > also manifest in HPL's and CAS's respective
> > fiction.
>
> > I have never felt that there is, or should
> be, a
> > sort of competiton between Lovecraft and
> Smith.
>
> > Nor do I. I certainly hope that nothing that
> I've
> > written here has given the impression that I
>
> > do.
>
>
> When coming newly to a mail list or discussion
> group, it's a good idea to get this out of the way
> early on. As you may have noticed, I posted here
> for the first time about a week ago.
>
> I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I, too,
> wanted to clarify that there isn't--or shouldn't
> be--any sort of rivalry between CAS and HPL, and
> that I've never implied anything of the sort. For
> my taste, HPL was the better fictioneer, and CAS
> not only much the greater poet, but also the
> finest American poet of the Twentieth Century.
> Each is quite secure upon his own mountain top.

I am not sufficiently familiar with his poetry to comment, nor does poetry "connect" with me. I would say--again, "agreeing to disagree" that Lovecraft's prose output was much more consistent in quality than Smith's (some of whose stories are unintended howlers), but that Smith, at his best, or even at 75% of his best, offered a broader canvas and more varied palette. Whether than makes him "better"...I think not necessarily. If you are reading for light entertainment and escapism, the injection of humor and irony in liberal doses makes Hyperborea or Zothique destination resorts of great attractiveness.

So, in short: Lovecraft does what he does better than anyone else I'm aware of, and does so consistently; Smith is inconsistent, and even when "on" doesn't do Lovecraft as well as Lovecraft, but does other things very, very well that Lovecraft either never tries or is not as gifted in portraying.


--Sawfish

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

Hiya fellas... I've been caught up with other stuff lately, and so I've had to skip a lot of what's been going on here.

I'm rather impressed by Ramsey Campbell. Of course, characterisation is important for him, given the high quality psychological horror he produces. His supernatural fiction too relies on the same detail of psychological realism for its portrayal of the effects of the outre in the lives of those affected. He's also more of a novelist than Lovecraft, so that affects his ability to spin a yarn.

It's a mistake to think of the mythos as such as a feature of HPL's work. It is true that we can distinguish a Dunsanian phase, but, and this must be remembered, this phase preceeded his encounter of Dunsany, and could quite validly be reassessed as his 'fantastic' phase. Then you could rename his "traditionalist" stories to 'horror stories'. The two overlapped in period, of course, the apotheosis of both being The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath and Charles Dexter Ward respectively. As for the later works, Joshi has given us the ideal term: "fantastic realism". That is, they approach the weird, the fantastic, with the techniques of realism, to lend it the greatest verismilitude possible. At the Mountains of Madness, I argue, is the apotheosis of this phase of his writing. At the same time, the three are less distinct as shading into each other, feeding and reflecting off each other.

> Can you recommend a Lovecraft forum?

There's a google group, Lovecraftscholars that may be of interest you. There are heaps of google groups dealing with Lovecraft, and there's sure to be one or more there for you.

> I am not sufficiently familiar with his poetry to
> comment, nor does poetry "connect" with me.

I understand how you feel. The relative paucity of detail in my comments about CAS' fiction reflects fiction's minor place for me, as compared to poetry (but then I write the damned stuff...*grin*).

I feel that CAS was more versatile, yes, than Lovecraft, but the latter was capable of churning out shite on occasions as well. Must I dredge up "The Street" again? Where I like CAS, it is because his fantastic fiction is married to a diction that works for the setting and story, such as in his Hyperborean, Poseidonian or Zothique fiction. I'm not a fan of his straight horror or science fiction, but I realise their importance as, to quote Chris Brennan, "potboilers that boiled a merry pot".

Yes, HPL doing HPL does it better than others, but the same is true of CAS doing CAS, especially in his fantasy and verse.

> Sawfish sez:
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "Life is a tragedy to those who feel, a comedy to
> those who think."

What if it's a comic tragedy? Or a tragi-comedy? Or just a black comedy?

Regarding CAS kidding around during discourse -- of course - as long as one is discussing literature, literary styles, etc., the witty aside is inevitable - we would often in the midst of matters drum up a quick limerick, and a wry pun on a passing comment was always welcome.

In this regard, I am shortly going to put out a cd of readings of some of my favorite Smith, and some of his favorites among other poets.
I will certainly try to include Henry Reid's delightful satire on T.S.
Eliot's Saturday night broadcasts made during the war (II) --"As we get older, we do not get any younger..." -- "venti o venti - the wind within a wind unable to speak for wind..."

calonlan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Regarding CAS kidding around during discourse --
> of course - as long as one is discussing
> literature, literary styles, etc., the witty aside
> is inevitable - we would often in the midst of
> matters drum up a quick limerick, and a wry pun on
> a passing comment was always welcome.
>
> In this regard, I am shortly going to put out a cd
> of readings of some of my favorite Smith, and some
> of his favorites among other poets.
> I will certainly try to include Henry Reid's
> delightful satire on T.S.
> Eliot's Saturday night broadcasts made during the
> war (II) --"As we get older, we do not get any
> younger..." -- "venti o venti - the wind within a
> wind unable to speak for wind..."
>

This is more like classical parody--or at least, my limited conception of it.

What I see in his stories is a very wry sense of humor. It seems like he seldom missed and opportunity to inject humor, if it was at all appropriate, and stories like the Voyage of King Euvoran (sp?) are just chock full of *layered* comic irony. If you can appreciate a dry sense of humor based on keen observation and a deep understanding of human nature, this story is a howler.

Did it seem to you that he was possessed of this type of sensibility in his day-to-day life? Did he make comic everyday observations?




--Sawfish

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

calonlan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In this regard, I am shortly going to put out a cd
> of readings of some of my favorite Smith, and some
> of his favorites among other poets.

Now, this is delightful news indeed. To get the chance to hear thy dulcent tones quothing bards and bardettes is one we should ot pass up.

Who and what shall you be including in this cd, and how may we get our paws on a copy?


*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]

yes, comic observations during the course of "everyday" life were part of Clark's makeup - after all, ordinary discourse is routinely full of amusing incongruities, is it not? - Besides, the denizens of the "happy Hour" bar provided lots of resources for amused (and bemused) observations.

Sorry here but I need to pipe up about something Dr. Farmer stated, in an off-hand kind of way, near the very top of this thread.

Dr. Farmer, writing about himself, said that in the circa 1960s he did not "fall prey to the foolishness of drug use."

Sorry again, but I gotta say I just can't take anymore broad-based denunciations of "drugs," a la Nancy Reagan's "just say no" or even off-handed remarks about the foolishness of them. "Drugs" includes aspirin, insulin, and everything else in the PDR and they ain't foolish, they are necessary. Alcohol is a drug and it's okay too, if people want to go for it and don't harm others (e.g., drive drunk). Where I live, marijuana can be medicine too. There's a constitutionally protected religion that uses peyote, and opium has been smoked for hundreds or thousands of years. Magic mushrooms have greatly impacted history, if you accept the views of Wasson, and I do. And the urge to alter consciousness is fundamental to humans. Watch a kid spin to get dizzy. And, if people didn't smoke hash, there wouldn't be much resonance to the driving metaphor of CAS's "The Hashish Eater" would there? Etc.

So everyone's entitled to their opinion, including me: I find pejorative all encompassing put downs about falling prey to the foolishness of "drugs" foolishness of a quite high order. And let me be clear: Dr. Farmer based on his posts here is a man with a mind of the highest order; in this instance, I simply disagree with his opinion.

-- S. Fama

My little post on the subject of Dr. Farmer's comments about drug use here likely got buried beneath the longer (and, I admit, more on-topic) posts in this thread, but I would like to add that I agree completely with Steven. While it is fatuous to suggest that any sort of imaginatively outre' art necessarily relies on illicit drug use, it is equally misguided to suggest, as some do, that the greatest imaginative art would never have been influenced by such use. Without laudanum (which, by the way, I recall having read somewhere that CAS may have taken in his youth as a medicine, or a preparation very similar to it), for example, the entire landscape of 19th-Century poetry would look very different, indeed. Again, 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.