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]

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.

I agree for the most part with both of you but I must make a clear distinction. Mr. Fama mentioned it is okay so long as it does not harm others. I agree. Yet... as so many people are social creatures, I think it is very hard to truly not harm other people by using drugs. Whether that be your friend, child, or relative, one is bound to harm someone if the usage is excessive or the usage is of the more "effective" drugs (i.e. heroin, cocaine, etc).

So well, when Dr. F mentions he avoided the pitfalls of drugs.. I think he is referring to one not being consumed totally by the often obsessive drug use as well as not affecting those around them and thus their environment.

Actually, I disagree that it mustn't harm others... it musn't have the potential to harm anyone.

Take the Australian Capital territory... marijuana is decriminalised, so I could grow up to five plants, or score some and smoke it, with no harm to anyone except, potentially, myself.

Marijuana has the tendency to trigger psychotic episodes in schizophrenics, so yes, it is harmful to some people, not all, but some. It's harmful to me, hence I don't take it. But I do take legal drugs, not criminalised drugs because I may need to -- Solian helps keep me sane and alert, which is a good thing, and I need my painkillers when I get migraines, which are relatively frequent at times.

So, by all means take the drug so long as doing so harms no-one, including yourself.

Like automobiles, etc., drugs--legal or illegal--will always have the potential to harm someone, including--or especially--the user. There are risks involved in many facets of life, and experimentation with illegal drugs certainly qualifies as such. One has to be willing to accept responsibility for, and the consequences of, one's actions. An exception to this, of course, is children in the custody of drug abusers. All the weight of the law must be brought to bear to aid such unfortunate and innocent victims. So far as I am concerned, however, everyone else is responsible for himself.

As for Dr. Farmer's meaning, here is his original quotation:

"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".

This statement seems to me to be a rather blanket condemnation of illicit drug use, in general. To this, I would respond that CAS used and, at times, abused, alcohol, and he did so during an era (Prohibition) when the manufacture and distribution of alcohol was illegal in the United States. To each his own illegal drug, I suppose! As for those who might defend alcohol in relation to other drugs, I would reply that the documented ill effects of alcohol abuse so far and so obviously outweigh those of, say, marijuana abuse that I won't even argue the point.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12 Nov 04 | 11:30AM by Kyberean.

Dear friends,
I am about to board the plane for Galveston,Texas where I will undergo my 32 heart
biopsy and 17th catheterization - 42d invasive procedure in 9 years - I take
approximately $20,000 per year of necessary drugs to prevent rejection of my now
30 year old heart, and to deal with counteracting the side effects (some even counteract the counteractions' sideeffects. When (and if) I return, I would like to put in a little contribution to your current disputation -- you are largely off the mark as to my comments on drug use. The zero moment approacheth; I must away!

Best of luck with your upcoming procedures. I look forward to your return, and, more specifically, to whatever clarifications you may provide regarding your comment about illicit drug use. Your dismissal of it seemed pretty sweeping to me, but it was also an offhand remark, and such can easily lead to misunderstandings. Again, good luck!

I wish you all the best, Dr. F. I, for one, would be most upset if not all went well. This place -- and I mean this big round thing we waltz around on -- won't be the same without you, fer shure.

Have returned intact with the gigantic hickey (sans fun) one acquires when a heart biopsy is done, and a pain in groin from the left heart catheterization - a good friend returning from his annual exam once remarked that a few miles from the hospital he felt something warm between his legs, and decided after looking, that, since it was not his wife's hand, he must be bleeding from the artery - fortunately
mine stayed shut this time, although year before last they nearly lost me.
I am not sure I can help mr. Fama with his angst over my comments, since on re-reading I find them quite accurate - I spent a major part of my life during the middle and late 60's and early 70's helping mop up and mend lives torn to pieces by illegal drug use. I helped found "Huckleberry House" in the Haight-Ashbury to provide
free medical care and counsel to thousands of kids who obeyed the song and came to San Francisco wearing "Flowers in their hair" --The walls of the clinic in less than 6 months after it became known nationally were covered with thousands of photos from desperate parents looking for their children, who were busily acquiring a variety of STD's, lice, scabies, excema, and other illnesses which commonly accompany dietary and sanitary insufficiencies. I have only contempt for illegal drugs and those who distribute them. I have great compassion for those who have fallen prey to the stuff, and have heard all the lies they tell themselves, and the euphemisms even the media heap upon it to make it seem "cool", "IN", or somehow harmless. I have been the one with the absorbent shoulder too many times following the death of those who have lost themselves in this fashion - we perform no act entirely unto ourselves in my experience - not all repercussions are immediate. I am even now working with a man and his family in his mid-fifties who has liver and brain mets, and in the midst of this turned up with hepatitis -- he wailed "how could this happen while all this other is going on?" His nurse asked whether he had a tatoo - he said when he was a stupid 17year old -- and there was the answer. As I write, I have just finished the latest statistics showing a 450% increase in young people needing liver transplants entirely due to the tremendous increase in tattooing and body piercing. I would be the last to stop people from doing these things, but only because I treasure the freedom to make a fool of myself -- but I am willing to accept the consequences.
Of course, now, as in the 60's the financial cost is/was borne by the public treasury.
I'm sorry to go on so, because it sounds a bit preachy I suppose. You must understand that for people of my generation (barring some legitimate demand to commit acts of civil disobedience to rectify an injustice), laws are not made to be broken.
Where pot has been legalized its use is strictly constrained (or ought to be) -- even so, there are ample alternatives that are more effective. To those who think pot is not a gateway drug, I can only give them my pity -- desire will usually find a rationale -- even though under no degree of scrutiny by the classic standards of either logic or common sense can the arguments stand. Again, I realize that several generations now have not been schooled in logic - alas many wrong choices get made without it - Master 'n bosn's song, by de la Mare:

At dirty dick's and sloppy joe's
we drank our liquor straight.
Some went upstairs with Marjory,
And some, alas, with Kate...

Now dear ones, whether I have satisfied you or not is really not the point of this Forum, now is it. So pocket the pejoratives and return to discussing CAS - and on that note as regards much of the discussion in this thread -- may I suggest that those of you who are enjoying dissecting the whole experience read Clark Ashton aloud, whether tale or poem, and record yourself doing so -- play it back while reading - you may find that a change of tone or emphasis here and there can utterly alter your perception of his intent - that writer who wrote of the wry and ironic in Clark's work has heard it well indeed - as I have said before (and is found in "Poems and Apothegms") my favorite quote of Clark's and one which speaks volumes of his attitude is --- "Sweet are the uses of Obscurity!"
Drf

Dr. Farmer:

I'm delighted to hear that you have returned safe and well from your procedure.

Quote:

To those who think pot is not a gateway drug,I can only give them my pity.

You may save your pity in my case. Marijuana was never a "gateway drug" for me, not has it been for the vast majority of the populace who use it--an inconvenient fact, but a fact, nonetheless. Let me add that Mr. Fama is not the only one who finds your generalizations on this subject to be judgmental, narrow-minded, and absurd--athough there's no angst involved on my part, to be sure. Also, a discussion of drug use (metaphorical or actual) and the creative process is hardly off-topic in a forum devoted to a man who wrote a poem called The Hashish-Eater. As you imply, however, it seems that we've all said what needs to be said on this subject, and may as well "pocket the pejoratives" on both sides of the question.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 19 Nov 04 | 10:34PM by Kyberean.

May voles everywhere squeak their praises unto Tsathoggua! Dr. Farmer is with us and well!

Although I don't agree that marijuana is necessarily a gateway drug per se, when it gets too prevalent, too commonplace, harder drugs tend to be taken to recapture the kick that marijuana once provided. I need only mention the fact that the decriminalisation of marijuana in the ACt has meant an increase in the problems associated with harder drugs.

Although I have used marijuana, I stopped after being diagnosed with schizophrenia and noting its ability to trigger a paychotic episode. When one has the facts, one can then make the informed decisions needed for effective living, and Dr. DFarmer's experiences certainly count towards his reaction.

Fundamentally, though, just as not all experiences are wonderful, not all experiences are hell-holes. It's a matter of knowing the risks and possible consequences, and acting appropriately as a result.

One of the difficulties with Dr. Farmer's generalizations is that they derive from a limited sample: The comparatively small perecentage of illicit drug users (I'm not referring to addictive drugs, such as crack or heroin, by the way; I never have been) who have the sort of extreme breakdown he describes. This would be akin to generalizing about alcohol use in the population as a whole based solely upon one's experience with alcoholics. The fact remains that, in the case of drugs that are non-addictive and non-dangerous when used moderately and responsibly (including alcohol), most persons will experience no difficulties, while a comparative few, due largely to some combination of of physiological susceptibility and personal immaturity, will abuse these substances and get into trouble with them. The general notion of marijuana as a "gateway drug", one that is equally dangerous to all, is simply silly, akin to saying that that glass of wine at dinner is a "gateway" to alcohol abuse for all.

By the way, I have eight tattoos, and also clean bill of health, based on a recent hepatitis panel. It's all a matter of using one's brain: Choosing a clean-looking and reputable tattoo parlor, making sure that there's an autoclave on the premises, seeing that the tattoo artist opens fresh needles from a sealed container, and that he opens fresh containers of ink, etc. I'm all for not protecting the stupid against the effects of their own stupidity, though, myself. The world is over-populated, as it is.

Hmm, all this really is starting to stray rather far afield of the subject of this forum, though, isn't it? Anyone for a discussion of altered states of consciousness (artificially and non-artificially generated) and their role in imaginative poetry? That seems rather more germane to CAS.

Thanks for the welcome back - as to most of the responses to my last, they are remarkably predictable, having heard all this BS before - folks you lack must not generalize from your own experience regarding the "gateway" concept -- If, as one writer says, you think the concept silly, it can only be because you have swallowed the media hype, and not actually been on the "front lines" - any percentage even so
of persons whose lives have been shattered by this tragic societal cancer is far too high. For better or worse I have seen it coast to coast and intimately - it is the effort to dismiss it that is silly, even banal -- although such an attitude brings a warm glow to hearts of many in the jungles of Columbia. I suppose I should encourage drug use much in the way I encourage cigarette use: It provides a steady flow of young and middle-aged clients to the Hospice program where my wife is a nurse and I do a great deal of "end of life" counselling and general hand-holding. As to Clark's use of drugs - his own experience with drugs has little or nothing to do with the writing of Hashish Eater - Clark had read numerous writings on the subject.

Clark was indeed a loner, but would have loved to have more recognition and all that goes with it. Clark enjoyed a little drink, but in my experience and in the memory of those who knew him from childhood on, he never achieved more than the "rosy glow" of good fellowship. You must all remember in your reading, that Clark unavoidably was first and always a Victorian as regards personal ethics and social standards of behavior. Obviously, neither the victorians nor Clark were inhibited in taking a
"romp in the Clover quilts" (borrowing briefly from Thomas' "Lament" - much loved by Clark and I both); however, to drink to excess? To risk public embarrassment and a night in the slammer? Never - Oscar Wilde observed that one should never drink alone since everyone will find out - in a town the size Auburn used to be, they knew when you used the outhouse and how many pages of the catalog you used. Clark maintained in the midst of his poverty the grace and dignity of the gentleman who raised him in the standards of the Empire - this fact permeates his writing - as well as the strong sense of justice which comes with inhaling the English common law from childhood on.

Keep reading Clark, read yet again, and once more read him - some of you have got it-
The less time you spend in vivesection, the more you will enjoy knowing this poet -
He would appreciate it, I can assure you.
On the other hand, pro or con, all writers love being the topic of conversation so
have at it.
I will not have many opportunities to visit for a while, since my Mother is nearing the end of her days, and caring for her affords little respite for the joys of the mind. I assure you I value each of you and respect the energy of your expression.
Small added note: to the apprentice critics among you - please take time to read
Dr. C.S.Lewis' collection of essays and lectures entitled "An experiment in Criticism" -- this is not one of his Christian apologetics but a posthumous collection of his astonishing and profound academic gifts - There have been few philologists who were his match - I regret that he died just before I was scheduled to take a class with him, though I did a seminar with Dr. Tolkien the same year, much to my benefit. Adieu for now dear friends.

Dr. Farmer:

Quote:

as to most of the responses to my last, they are remarkably predictable, having heard all this BS before - folks you lack must not generalize from your own experience regarding the "gateway" concept -- If, as one writer says, you think the concept silly, it can only be because you have swallowed the media hype, and not actually been on the "front lines".

Because you are incapable of specifically addressing even the most basic of points that are opposed to yours, and instead feel the need to resort to cheap vulgarity by dismissing these opposing points as "BS", I would suggest that the source of the "BS" here is you, not those who have countered your judgmental, subjective emotional outpourings with rational objections.

As for CAS, I certainly did not dream up the notion that, at a certain period of his life, he drank excessively, but I would defer to Scott Connors's knowledge and expertise in this matter, should he care to weigh in here. What is incontrovertible is the following: That CAS drank, that alcohol is a drug, that alcohol is demonstrably worse in its effects when abused than such illegal drugs as marijuana, that there is no solid scientific evidence that marijuana is a "gateway" for anything, and that CAS manufactured and drank alcohol at a time when it was illegal to do so--so much for that virtuous older generation for whom "laws were not meant to be broken", eh, Doctor? Dismiss these hard facts as "BS" only at the peril of your credibility.

Quote:

I assure you I value each of you and respect the energy of your expression.

Even us purveyors of BS? How awfully magnanimous of you!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 21 Nov 04 | 11:20AM by Kyberean.

Addendum:

"He drank, sometimes too much [...]".

from George F. Haas, "As I Remember Klarkash-Ton"

> "He drank, sometimes too much [...]".
> from George F. Haas, "As I Remember Klarkash-Ton"

Donald Sidney-Fryer adds: "Smith certainly had not eaten any hashish by the time he created the poem, although apparently he did experiment with drugs sometime in the latter part of his life, in addition to being an evidently lifelong devotee of assorted hard spirits and Californian wines, but rarely to excess."
Text taken from the leaflet of DSF's audio cd "The Hashish-Eater and other poems" <[donaldsidneyfryer.free.fr] >, if I may be allowed this promotional digression.
This gateway controversy, although slightly offtopic, is very interesting but a little embarassing. This notion is known to be a typical conservative prejudice (or propaganda argument), and I've always dismissed it as such, but my knowledge in the field being largely second hand my contribution to this controversy is very likely to end here. I'm sure that my deep respect for Dr. Farmer and my interest in his comments on the work of his friend are shared by all of us here, and as usual the old saying proves true: friends should never talk politics... :-)
Phil

Thanks for offering Donald Sidney-Fryer's observations on the subject, which are most welcome.
Like George Haas's reminiscences, the statement you quote reminds us, among other things, that Dr. Farmer is not the only friend CAS ever had, and that his opinions, while of interest and value, ought not always to be accepted with obsequious reverence. I'll not sit still for anyone dismissing my seriously intended arguments as "BS", especially when the counter-"arguments" on offer reek far more of the barnyard than anything I've written.

Quote:

I'm sure that my deep respect for Dr. Farmer and my interest in his comments on the work of his friend are shared by all of us here, and as usual the old saying proves true: friends should never talk politics... :-)

Well, in my case, you're right about the second point, but not about the first one. It is also wise to recall that acquaintances who share one common interest will not necessarily have anything else in common. Better, I agree, to stick to commonalities.

Regarding the "gateway" theory, it is, as you say, merely conservative propaganda. I've looked into it, and have not found an iota of respectable science to support its alarmist claims. Even if it were true, then should we ban alcohol for the same reason? It's amusing, in any case, to be dismissed as a media dupe by someone who so clearly is one himself, in this instance.

George Haas new Clark only through brief visits - Donald was introduced to Clark through me, but had only a couple of visits as Carol was not too fond of him (regrettably, as the rest of us were/are) - My only claim here is that I new him longer and more intimately in the last years of his life than anyone now living - In addition, from childhoos on I knew many people who had known (including biblically) Clark all his life - the Sullys, Ethel Heiple, Roy Squires, Count Emilion Hebenstreit, and many of the middle-aged generation among my teachers who had taken an interest in him as well - even Harold Rubin, who was the journalism instructor at the Community College and was part of the circle I moved in as a young student.
Sorry Kyberean, I shall not trade insults with you, but if you think you have something relevant to contribute to the forum on the subject for which it exists, do so - you are clearly out of your depth on other matters. EOD

Quote:

Sorry Kyberean, I shall not trade insults with you, but if you think you have something relevant to contribute to the forum on the subject for which it exists, do so - you are clearly out of your depth on other matters.

You're the one who intiated the insults, and you have a lot of nerve to suggest that I have stooped to your level. Who was the first to use the vulgar term "BS"? Hint: not I.

As for your kind suggestion that I contribute relevant material to the forum, I invite you to take your own advice. You are the one who began editorializing about the follies of drug use and other utterly unrelated matters.

Regarding your risible assertion that I am the one who is out his depth in these other matters, may I remind you that you have not answered a single point that I or Steven Fama have raised. Instead, in reply you have offered sweeping, patronizing dismissals that incorporate nearly every logical fallacy in the book (hasty generalizations, generalizations from limited samples, appeals to emotion, etc.), all of which demonstrate that you are the one who is out of his depth. Continue to delude yourself otherwise, if you like, but that fact shall be apparent to anyone who bothers actually to read this thread.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 22 Nov 04 | 11:47AM by Kyberean.

By the way, what does the frequency of George Haas's and Donald Sidney-Fryer's personal visits to CAS have to do with anything? Until refuted, their observations--which I presume have some factual basis--remain viable alternative interpretations to yours regarding CAS's drug and alcohol intake. That is my point.

Aren't we all being a bit like Laocoon, finding ourselves wrapped up in a never-ending discussion about what is an innately political topic -- drugs -- in an otherwise unsuitable forum? Let us consider calling a truce, turning our back on how and why CAS used or didn't use drugs, used or didn't drink, and look instead on what's essential about the man -- that he wrote, and that his writings give us pleasure even now, as we speak. It would do better for his memory that we reached a concord that allowed us to forego bickering, and instead celebrate the positive aspects of his legacy to us; after all, a man deserves to be remembered for his best, eh?

This means we should look to what maeks his work unique, perhaps, and what ties us together, and not divides us.

Quote:

Let us consider calling a truce

I suggested that, as well, only to be met with Farmer's vulgar remark, in reply. I'm perfectly willing to shut up about all this if Farmer is, but I don't take that sort of garbage from anyone in real life, and I don't take it from anyone on the Internet, either.

I will repeat, though, that the drug use question, both with regard to CAS, in particular, as well as to creativity, in general, is perfectly on topic for this forum, so far as I'm concerned. If the matter can't be discussed dispassionately, though, then I agee that it would be as well not to discuss it at all.

Kyberean Wrote:

<SNIP MUCH>

>
> Regarding the "gateway" theory, it is, as you say,
> merely conservative propaganda. I've looked into
> it, and have not found an iota of respectable
> science to support its alarmist claims. Even if it
> were true, then should we ban alcohol for the same
> reason? It's amusing, in any case, to be dismissed
> as a media dupe by someone who so clearly is one
> himself, in this instance.

I wish to take credit/responsiblity for this latest round of "did he/didn't he take drugs?" I was reading a particular passage that I can no longer recall and Smith's description of what it was like the morning after (in the story's case, hash) a night of cannibis excess--that screwy, disassociated feeling, not sure whether it's pleasant or not--was so on the mark that I speculated that he knew this feeling from personal experience. And I would say that "Symposium of the Gorgon" fairly accurately captures the alcoholic walk-about I've experienced when, as a more youthful pleasure-seeker, I did the same thing: roaming from place to place drinking, becoming cumulatively less and less sure of where I was, or how, exectly, I had gotten there, until awakening under a kitchen table, in the grey dawn, wrapped in a quilt, my mouth feeling/tasting like it was stuffed with a plumber's handerkerchief...

As to the gateway concept, those who discard it in toto perhaps fail to see, or maybe weigh, the circumstantial (as opposed to the causal) connection. Very few folks who become heroin mainliners start by sticking a needle in their collective arms; following the dotted line back, they often start with underage drinking, go to the easiest illicit intoxicant they can lay their hands on--which is often a propellant, or used to be glue--but might also be rope. Then to other forms of illicit intoxicants, not necessarily because the other intoxicants become "tame", but becuase they become familar, and what you're after the novelle experience. And so is your circle of friends.

I don't believe that this is a causal progression; rather, when the individual makes that first infintessimal step *toward the illicit*, they morally set the stage for trying any other illicit substance.

"Right. I'm 16 and not supposed to be doing this drinking, but I've found enjoyment *and companionship* [let's not overlook the social aspect] in doing it--and as far as I can tell, haven't been hurt in any way. I wonder if the other stuff I'm not supposed to do is equally enjoyable..."

This is kind of the way I viewed it.

As far as the harmlessness of any of these intoxicants, that's pretty relative to the individual concerned--their ability to metabolize the substance, etc. (remember that not all two pack per day smokers develop respiratory disease), and it's also subjective as to what any individuals consider harmless, e.g., I may consider getting blind drunk twice a month harmless, while other may not. They may even refer to this as "alcoholism", while I may not. In this regard, it is similar to the aesthetic matter of tattoos, where some individuals view them as a decorative expressions of indiviudualism, while others view them as frivolous, short-sighted, and symbolically self-destructive displays of attention-seeking behavior.

Me, I know, after all these years, that some of my prior behaviors have compromised my health to a certain degree, but I don't care: they are my choices, and I would like to believe that I'll not cause others any great degree of inconvenience, but who knows? I will absolutely guarantee you, however, that stuff I thought was harmless was not quite so innocuous as I had believed.

There is no free lunch.

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kyberean Wrote:
>
> There is no free lunch.
>
>
Oh, there is free lunch, but it often involves gherkins.

The burden of proof is on the proponent of a proposition, and the proponents of the "gateway" theory have failed miserably in their proofs; that's really all that needs to be said on that subject.

To the best of my knowledge, light-to-moderate marijuana use has never been proven to be generally harmful, period--although not for lack of trying on the part of the ideologues. As to the business of susceptibility, individual ability to metabolize the substance, etc., all that applies a fortiori to alcohol, yet no one here seems to advocate prohibition.

I hope that we're finished with all this now!

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The burden of proof is on the proponent of a
> proposition, and the proponents of the "gateway"
> theory have failed miserably in their proofs;
> that's really all that needs to be said on that
> subject.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, light-to-moderate
> marijuana use has never been proven to be
> generally harmful, period--although not for lack
> of trying on the part of the ideologues. As to the
> business of susceptibility, individual ability to
> metabolize the substance, etc., all that applies a
> fortiori to alcohol, yet no one here seems to
> advocate prohibition.

EGGS-actky!

I don't propose prohibition, either. This isn't a "dope BAD, booze GOOD" discussion. I'm trying to say that to smugly waive one's hands, looking for iron-clad proof of direct health problems denies the phenomenon of incremental use of intoxicants. The problem is not (necessarily) contained within the drug, itself. Propensity to intoxicant use is an indicator, either a shiboleth for subcultural involvement, and the concommitant social support it affords, or it is a canary in a mineshaft, your very own canary, indicating the *personal* propensity to want to push the limits.

It's true (or at least, I agree) that looking at marijuana as the gateway to harder drugs by claiming that it "led" to it is silly. You can make the argument, statistically, that first they drank beer, then smoked dope, then snorted coke, etc. You can be even sillier by saying that before they drank beer, they drank Dr. Pepper, and therefore Dr. Pepper is a gateway drug. But few people go from drinking beer directly to snorting coke, and even fewer go directly to shooting up.

However, I believe that there is a psycological difference when using an *illicit* intoxicant, which marijuana still is in most/many places. (There's a very funny story when dope was "decriminalized in California, back in the late 70's. Public use quickly peaked, then ***dropped*** until the dsitinctive smell of burning weed was **rarer**, by far, than when it was a felony. Why, I wonder?) You have decided that, in your search for new horizons, that normal limits don't apply. This is a crucial step.

I stopped smoking dope when I was aboout 35-40. I can remember smoking some very powerful stuff that a friend brought over ("It's sinsimilla, man..."), and I hadn't smoked anything for about 6-9 months. As I lay back, listening to music and laughing, as was my wont, my heart skipped a beat. Whoa! What was that? Then it did a few more times--a little minor arrhythmia (sp?).

This is merely the normal stuff that you tolerate in everyday life, especially if you use caffeine. But dope highlights and focuses. I rapidly became aware of bodiliy pains, and aches: every place I'd had surgery to repair athletic injury was sending me a little greeting card. This was really pretty depressing, since the enjoyable focus was now not so enjoyable, being directed instead to the obvious deterioration of my body, and the forced confrontation of the leading edge of my own mortality.

And this became increasingly my exeperience with cannabis, so I gradually stopped.

>
> I hope that we're finished with all this now!

Why?

Quote:

This isn't a "dope BAD, booze GOOD" discussion.

I'm not suggesing that it is, but one cannot have a rational discussion of drug use without including alcohol. Recall, too, my original point that CAS was using alcohol at a time when it was illegal to do so.

Quote:

I'm trying to say that to smugly waive one's hands, looking for iron-clad proof of direct health problems denies the phenomenon of incremental use of intoxicants.

Hmm, don't you think that the smugness lies rather on the other side? I do. In any case, no one denies that the use of weaker illicit substances can, in certain susceptible individuals, lead to use of stronger ones. I made this very point myself earlier in the discussion. To be a "gateway", however, a drug would have to have this effect on a far greater proportion of users than it, in fact, does. Even my pal Dr. F. tacitly acknowledged this fact when he switched gears and declared that even one ruined life due to illegal drugs was far too many. Perhaps he even wrote this with a glass of his beloved Burgundy near at hand....

Your point that the allure of drugs perhaps lies in their illicit nature is an interesting one, though.

Quote:

> I hope that we're finished with all this now!
Why?

Because the discussion as it stands is getting a bit far afield of the subject-matter of the forum. As I've mentioned before, if we are going to discuss this subject, then I'd rather discuss drug use among artists, the pros and cons of drugs as an aid to imagination, drugs as metaphors, a la The Hashish-Eater, etc., as such subjects are far more pertinent to the work of CAS. Also, the political aspects of this discussion have generated some ill feeling. Although the sharpness of certain of my replies may suggest otherwise, that is something that I neither enjoy nor cultivate (although I certainly won't run from a scrap, either).

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Quote:This isn't a "dope BAD, booze GOOD"
> discussion.
>
> I'm not suggesing that it is, but one cannot have
> a rational discussion of drug use without
> including alcohol. Recall, too, my original point
> that CAS was using alcohol at a time when it was
> illegal to do so.


This in no way attempts to excuse, or norm, his behavior (to me, such would be irrelevant, anyway), but the prohibition of alcohol consumption in the US was substantially different in social impact than the prohibition of cannibis use is today--or even in the 30's (if I recall) when first prohibited.

You had a social habit (drinking alcoholic beverages) that was *very* deeply rooted, culturally, in the vast majority of adult Americans. In a sense, it was a legislative anomaly, and one wonders at the public mood that permitted the Progressive reforms of the early 1900's in the US, even to prohibitiing private possession and consumption of alcohol. My own grandfathers, fresh from southern Europe, could not believe that they understood what they were being told (Nah. They *can't* mean that; I must be misunderstanding."), and therefore ignored the law and made, and *sold*, alcoholic beverages. This is profoundly different from prohibited cannibis usage, both in length of cultural tradition, and in the number of people who indulged in it.

So, yep, cannibis usage was targetted as a scapegoat, since it seems that people need to have something to point to as being "worse" than their own marginal habits: "Oh, sure, I may get shitfaced every now and then, but it's not nearly as bad as those non-conformists in the apartment upstairs who smoke that funny tobacco." Because the number of cannibis consumers was relatively low, as compared with drinkers, it was politically quite easy to make it illegal while allowing alcolhol to be readily available, when in reality, they are both minor intoxicants used to "blow off steam".

They each have costs, however, both personal and public. Norming for the increased numbers of alcohol users, I'd say that there's still much greater public cost associated with alcohol use than with cannibis.

Now, even when each is used in a fairly responsible manner, I'd say that cannibis has fairly high personal costs that are often overlooked: the general passivity that its use induces probably won't help you climb the corporate ladder, and it certainly has no real place in engineering. Art, and art aprecation, may be another matter, entirely. Alcohol, in sales and management positions, probably does not hurt as much as cannibis. There are certainly exceptions, but you don't really see your Type A persoanlities toking up all that much. But they will knock off martinis after hours, since alcohol does not inhibit agression, as far as I can tell, and agression is what these folks are all about, it's the recreational drug of choice for these folks.

>
Quote:I'm trying to say that to smugly waive
> one's hands, looking for iron-clad proof of direct
> health problems denies the phenomenon of
> incremental use of intoxicants.
>
> Hmm, don't you think that the smugness lies rather
> on the other side? I do.

Fine, but it happens on both "sides", as you choose to identify the continuum.

I think we'd be much better off disassociating our thinking from the notion of "sides", as if this were some kind of cultural soccer match. What you actually have is people who like to get messed up (to varying degrees) and people who don't. That the people who favor getting messed up view others who also like getting messed up--but using a different intoxicant--as somehow belonging to another "side", is really quite comical. The real "sides" are "use" vs "no use". No user can legitmately claim innocent use: there is a taint to using that must be recognised, no matter what the intent or level of use. This said, I view the choice to use/not use fully within the purview of another's indivdual freedom, provided that they do not impact me in any demonstrably negative way. I would, for example, raise a huge ruckus if my garbage man failed to get my trash effeicently, and on time, because he was either stoned or drunk. If he goes home, and is stoned or drunk, that's OK by me. If he beats his wife and kids, that's also OK by me, provided that I don;t know them, don't have to see it; and don't have to pay for their treatment. When I am involved to the extent that I have to face any of these, I feel righteously indignant, like a good citizen. And if he goes out into the public in a marginally operable condition, that's another matter, too.

I was one of the worst offenders in this last scenario, and I'm real glad that I went through those years without causing substantial harm to others. Must be good kharma.


> In any case, no one
> denies that the use of weaker illicit substances
> can, in certain susceptible individuals, lead to
> use of stronger ones. I made this very point
> myself earlier in the discussion. To be a
> "gateway", however, a drug would have to have this
> effect on a far greater proportion of users than
> it, in fact, does.

That's right: it's circumstantial ("90% of the heroin users previously used marijuana"), rather than causal ("Of all marijuna users, only 5% go on to use heroin"). Illicit use only sets the stage, psychologically, for trying any of a number of other, perhaps more potent, illicit intoxicants.

> Even my pal Dr. F. tacitly
> acknowledged this fact when he switched gears and
> declared that even one ruined life due to illegal
> drugs was far too many. Perhaps he even wrote this
> with a glass of his beloved Burgundy near at
> hand....

Wouldn't matter if he did, would it?

>
> Your point that the allure of drugs perhaps lies
> in their illicit nature is an interesting one,
> though.
>
Quote:> I hope that we're finished with all
> this now!
>
> Why?
>
> Because the discussion as it stands is getting a
> bit far afield of the subject-matter of the forum.
> As I've mentioned before, if we are going to
> discuss this subject, then I'd rather discuss drug
> use among artists, the pros and cons of drugs as
> an aid to imagination, drugs as metaphors, a la
> The Hashish-Eater, etc., as such subjects are far
> more pertinent to the work of CAS. Also, the
> political aspects of this discussion have
> generated some ill feeling. Although the sharpness
> of certain of my replies may suggest otherwise,
> that is something that I neither enjoy nor
> cultivate (although I certainly won't run from a
> scrap, either).

Ah. I see.

Quote:

This in no way attempts to excuse, or norm, his behavior (to me, such would be irrelevant, anyway), but the prohibition of alcohol consumption in the US was substantially different in social impact than the prohibition of cannibis use is today--or even in the 30's (if I recall) when first prohibited.

Perhaps it was, perhaps it was not, but my original point about CAS and illegal alcohol use was in reponse to the observation--now in itself debatable with regard to other drugs, as well, it would seem--that CAS avoided the "foolishness" of illegal drug use. I also wryly repeated my point in reference to Farmer's statement that, for older generations, "laws were not meant to be broken". That simpering platitude about the superior morality and virtues of the older generation versus the younger is as old as the age of Plato, and no doubt it was as risible then as it is now.

By the way, my understanding is that cannabis use was outlawed in the U.S only during the early part of the Twentieth Century, and therefore not very long before Prohibition (in effect roughly from 1920-1933).

Quote:

Because the number of cannibis consumers was relatively low, as compared with drinkers, it was politically quite easy to make it illegal while allowing alcolhol to be readily available, when in reality, they are both minor intoxicants used to "blow off steam".

Agreed.

Quote:

They each have costs, however, both personal and public. Norming for the increased numbers of alcohol users, I'd say that there's still much greater public cost associated with alcohol use than with cannibis.

Again, agreed.

Quote:

I think we'd be much better off disassociating our thinking from the notion of "sides", as if this were some kind of cultural soccer match.

To be clear, when I wrote of sides, it was in the very limited context of proponents and opponents of the "gateway" theory. In that matter, I do think that notion of "sides" is apropos.

Quote:

> Even my pal Dr. F. tacitly
> acknowledged this fact when he switched gears and
> declared that even one ruined life due to illegal
> drugs was far too many. Perhaps he even wrote this
> with a glass of his beloved Burgundy near at
> hand....

Wouldn't matter if he did, would it?

To me, it's worth pointing out, if only to highlight the hypocrisy and cluelessness of those who rant against the evils of illegal "soft drugs" while holding an alcoholic beverage (and perhaps a cigarette) in their hands. See your "use" versus "no use" comment, above. As you indicate, that is the real dichotomy. Habitual or frequent users of caffeine, nicotine, and, especially, alcohol, have no moral authority whatsoever to condemn illegal "soft drug" users.

Quote:

That's right: it's circumstantial ("90% of the heroin users previously used marijuana"), rather than causal ("Of all marijuna users, only 5% go on to use heroin"). Illicit use only sets the stage, psychologically, for trying any of a number of other, perhaps more potent, illicit intoxicants.

Change the wording slightly in the last sentence to "Illicit use may set the stage [...]". and I completely agree.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> As for CAS, I certainly did not dream up the
> notion that, at a certain period of his life, he
> drank excessively, but I would defer to Scott
> Connors's knowledge and expertise in this matter,
> should he care to weigh in here.

Since my opinion has been solicited, I will indeed "weigh in" on this issue. First of all, I should point out that if I possess any special expertise in this area, it is because I have been privileged to know many of Clark Ashton Smith's friends, Dr. Farmer not being the least of these by any stretch of the imagination. Therefore, when he chimes in on a subject as it applies to CAS, we would all do well to listen.
In addition to my own research on CAS, I should add that I am a registered nurse by profession, and also that I have had extensive personal and professional experience with alcohol and drug addiction: my grandfather was an alcoholic, as are several close relatives whose names are frankly nobody's business but mine. I have also worked in both psychiatric and correctional settings, and have witnessed much of the pathology of drug abuse. Although I am politically libertarian, my professional education and experience, along with long conversations with the aforementioned relatives and friends, leads me to the conclusion that marijuana legalization would be a profoundly bad thing. I have to come down alongside Dr. Farmer on this.
Now, if I have not slammed shut the minds of those of you who enjoy an occasional blunt, here is what I have found out about CAS and alcohol: although in the late 1940s until he moved to Pacific Grove CAS was regarded in Auburn as a drunk, this was not due to any witnessed episodes of intoxication but rather to his reclusiveness and poverty. The Placer County sheriff at the time knew Clark well, in fact his father was a close childhood friend of Smith's, and he tells me that CAS was never cited or arrested for public intoxication, and that he never witnessed or heard of such episodes. CAS did frequent a bar in Old Auburn, the Happy Hour, but the owner, who was best man at Clark's wedding, describes Clark as a social drinker, as do two other patrons of that establishment: he categorically denies that CAS was a drunk, and who would know better than his bartender? CAS did drink quite a bit, mostly wine, but E. Hoffmann Price's memoir shows that he held his liquor quite well: "I can testify that Clark Ashton Smith was a mighty drinker before the Lord." That does not mean that he was an alcoholic. In 1929 CAS mentions that he had been hitting the bottle a bit too frequently, consuming up to a pint a day of bootleg whiskey, but he also mentions that he was able to cease drinking altogether. If CAS had been addicted, he would have been at high risk for delirium tremens, which he apparently never experienced. Likewise, he seems to have been drinking heavily from around 1940 to 1942, during what Carol later called his "Belsen period" (see the photo taken by Paul Freehafer in the frontispiece of STRANGE SHADOWS), but again, he was able to cut off his drinking without any trouble. Both of these period coincede with extremely stressful periods of Smith's life. He may well have used alcohol as what we nurses call an "inappropriate coping mechanism," but never to the point where he became physically or psychologically addicted (although his evident high tolerance for alcohol is worrying, but in the absence of any other symptoms is not conclusive). He cut off all alcohol use from 1958 onwards as he began to experience a series of mini-strokes that would ultimately kill him; ironically, current research shows that one or two glasses of red wine, CAS' "drug of choice," helps lower the risk of both stroke and heart attack, but in 1958 abstinence was regarded as the best course of treatment.
As far as hashish is concerned, CAS categorically denied ever using it, stating that the title of "The Hashish-Eater" was to be taken metaphorically. Don Fryer believes that later in life CAS may have done some experimentation, but I am not privy to his reasoning. In any event, the time period when this would have occurred would have been during his friendship with Dr. Farmer, who as a college student at the time would have been one logical conduit for such experimentation. So, unless the good doctor is glossing over his own youthful excesses here (:-)), I think we can dismiss this as a possibility.
In conclusion, I would like to state that we are fortunate to have someone like Dr. Farmer, someone who knew Clark well, frequenting this board.
Best wishes,
Scott

voleboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Kyberean Wrote:
> >
> > There is no free lunch.
> >
> >
> Oh, there is free lunch, but it often involves
> gherkins.
>
>
>
Ummmmm....gherkins (droll)...

Scott:

Thanks for your very interesting input regarding these questions. Your observations reinforce what I stated early in the debate, namely, that CAS abused alcohol at times during his life. (I never wrote that he was an alcoholic, as not everyone who abuses alcohol is an alcoholic). I'm less ready than you to dismiss Donald Sidney-Fryer's claim regarding other drug use, but, like you, I would be interested in knowing its basis.

Quote:

In conclusion, I would like to state that we are fortunate to have someone like Dr. Farmer, someone who knew Clark well, frequenting this board.

No one here questions the value of Dr. Farmer's memories and observations relative to Clark Ashton Smith. Dr. Farmer's status as "oldest living", etc., etc., however, does not give him carte blanche in matters of etiquette.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Scott:
>
> Thanks for your very interesting input regarding
> these questions. Your observations reinforce what
> I stated early in the debate, namely, that CAS
> abused alcohol at times during his life. (I never
> wrote that he was an alcoholic, as not everyone
> who abuses alcohol is an alcoholic). I'm less
> ready than you to dismiss Donald Sidney-Fryer's
> claim regarding other drug use, but, like you, I
> would be interested in knowing its basis.

I do not dismiss Don Fryer's assertions, I merely state that I do not know his sources. Perhaps he learned something from Eric Barker and Madelynne Greene that he hasn't shared with us yet.
It seems to me that saying that not everyone who abuses alcohol is an alcoholic is a distinction without a difference, since an alcoholic is someone who abuses alcohol--or perhaps we might say, the alcohol abuses him? Regardless, the bottom line is that alcohol does not seem to have affected Smith's creative life any. I think that this discussion is probably all talked out.
>
Quote:In conclusion, I would like to state that
> we are fortunate to have someone like Dr. Farmer,
> someone who knew Clark well, frequenting this
> board.
>
> No one here questions the value of Dr. Farmer's
> memories and observations relative to Clark Ashton
> Smith. Dr. Farmer's status as "oldest living",
> etc., etc., however, does not give him carte
> blanche in matters of etiquette.

Looking over the history of this thread, I would hardly call Dr. Farmer's dismissal of your views on marijuana as "BS" as something beyond the pale of net etiquette, but hey! I'm a veteran of the Barker wars on alt.books-ghost-fiction! Then again, maybe my skin's a bit thicker than yours. After all, I get called worse things at work everyday. By the same token, your dismissal of his views with the label-turned-epithet "conservative" doesn't exactly convince me either. As the recent U. S. elections show, not everyone (51% apparently) regards the term as derogatory. Although I have not looked into any studies regarding marijuana as a gateway drug, my own experience in this area does nothing to convince me that it is not. I know for a fact that it was a gateway in each case of drug addiction in my family. Also, as a practical matter, since cannabis is illegal in the United States, it would seem that any studies undertaken in this matter would be conducted by pro-legalization supporters, and thus subject to a certain degree of bias. Anyway, this is all off-topic, and I suggest we give it a decent burial.
Best,
Scott

Scott:

First, as I explained before, the notion of whether CAS used drugs, the use of drugs as part of the creative process, etc., seems to me very much on topic for this forum. Second, it was Dr. Farmer who introduced the subject via his remarks.

Quote:

I do not dismiss Don Fryer's assertions, I merely state that I do not know his sources.

Your remarks following that part of your post give a rather different impression, but I am glad that you are open-minded regarding the subject.

Quote:

It seems to me that saying that not everyone who abuses alcohol is an alcoholic is a distinction without a difference, since an alcoholic is someone who abuses alcohol--or perhaps we might say, the alcohol abuses him?

I couldn't possibly disagree more. The college student who binge drinks on weekends, the occasional drinker who decides one night to drive under the influence of alcohol: All are, to my mind, persons who abuse alcohol without necessarily being alcoholics.

Quote:

Looking over the history of this thread, I would hardly call Dr. Farmer's dismissal of your views on marijuana as "BS" as something beyond the pale of net etiquette, but hey! I'm a veteran of the Barker wars on alt.books-ghost-fiction! Then again, maybe my skin's a bit thicker than yours.

Your skin is hardly thicker than mine. For instance, although I thought that it showed questionable judgment, the posting of the anti-Iraqi war banner on this Web site didn't bother me a bit. On the other hand, it sent you (and others) into a rage--vastly more off topic, let me add--that far exceeded anything that I have posted in this thread. To each his own "triggers", I suppose. I suppose, as well, that it's easy to dismiss personal remarks when they aren't directed at you.

It wasn't merely the use of the vulgar term "BS" that irritated me, but also Farmer's patronizing tone and sweeping, ad hominem generalizations and emotional "arguments", after which he would proclaim "Q.E.D.," like a strutting cockerel. Calling someone "out of [his] depth", wthout offering even the slightest counter-argumentation or evidence to support such an assertion, is also not good "Netiquette", in my book. Perhaps standards are lower on the rest of the Web (I would hardly compare this forum to--*shudders*--a newsgroup), but I expect better here. That doesn't mean that I won't remove the gloves, when necessary, though.

As for the alleged pejorative use of the term "conservative", it was Philippe who introduced that term, not I. I merely agreed that the "gateway" theory is conservative propaganda. I dislike ideologues of all stripes, be they conservative, liberal, or other, and the "gateway" theory is purely the product of ideology, not science. In this case, it reflects the ideological bias of conservatives. One can certainly note such a fact without being subject to the accusation that one is leveling an "epithet" at a given group.

(By the way, if studies regarding the "gateway" theory are likely to be funded by pro-legalization groups, then why would conservative groups even use such a theory? They must have studies of their own that suggest a different conclusion. If that's the case, then such studies would be open to the same objection of bias that you raise. Anyway, all this is moot: The burden of proof lies with the proponent of a proposition, and I am still waiting to see that proof regarding the "gateway" theory. I'm going to have a long wait, because--having actually looked into the matter--I know that there isn't any).

As for giving this discussion a "decent burial", I have suggested that on more than one occasion, as well, but, after I do so, others seem determined to respond and keep the discussion alive! So long as others continue to respond to it, I shall, as well.

Well, to paraphrase Marc Anthony, "I come to bury this argument, not to perpetuate it." RIP.
Scott

Kyberean Wrote:
>As for the alleged pejorative use of the term "conservative",
>it was Philippe who introduced that term, not I. I merely
>agreed that the "gateway" theory is conservative propaganda.

Yes I did. Well, honestly Dr. Farmer's opinion on this matter seems to me rather conservative, isn't it? As far as I know the term "conservative" is used and shared by people who call themselves, often proudly, conservatives, so there was no pejorative use of the term implied in my post at all. One more time I guess I'll blame my sometimes partial mastery of the subtleties of English! But I think I see your point: "propaganda" isn't exactly laudatory. Well...
As for Don's sources there's an easy way to find out. Let's ask him! Next time I write to him, I will. It's an interesting matter, it deserves to be clarified, or at least more thoroughly investigated. If only for this rather mundane reason: whenever I quote Smith's poem, or show someone the chapbook of the Hashish-Eater I've published here in France, it always ends up like this: "But what about him, did he really take some?" And all I can answer is "We don't really know."

Philippe Gindre

Scott:

Quote:

Well, to paraphrase Marc Anthony, "I come to bury this argument, not to perpetuate it." RIP.

As I've mentioned, that sounds fine to me. I hope that others agree.


Philippe:

I agree that it shall be very interesting, indeed, to hear what Donald Sidney-Fryer has to say about the matter.