Why don't you write this all up as an article, or, at least, write up your side, and I write mine when I can.
Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When I say "Smith (or Lovecraft) is moral," I do
> not mean to comment on their personal moral code
> (although these aspects could inform this
> discussion, were we to want to discuss the source
> of moral influences in their work). I mean the
> "moral landscape" they tend to create.
>
I'm not familiar enough with his entire work to say if there is a consistent moral landscape thereby created, or if it varies by story or setting. All I can comment upon are the few stories that I'm reasonably familiar with.
> But the aspect of the world that decides their
> fate is often a manifestation of a supernaltural
> being, and a lot of times (not always, as another
> poster has shrewdly observed) there is an impetus,
> or "reason," for the punishment. Now, the reason
> may not be one that traditionally is adequate
> cause for punishment--but it often is.
>
Given this, then, can we apply morality to the supernatural being, and if so, whose? Do they have their own morality, ambiguous or unknown as it is, compared to the human characters? How do the two orders of being interact, and in doing so reflect upon their forms of morality?
> This one is ambiguous, though. Interesting that in
> this story, a *living* person was going to be
> eaten--or worse. This "broke" the code of the god,
> in favor of the degenerate who wanted to buy the
> protagonist's young wife. And *he* got his moral
> come-uppance.
>
From the evidence to the story, it was the lesser characters not the god that treated her as if she was dead when not. Thus she was in no danger of being eaten. Likewise, the god's code allowed Abnon-Tha his necromancy, but only in the temple, and only temporary; he could play, as it were, with Mordiggian's food. Deciding to bugger off with one was the point he transgressed the god's whims, and so he was toast, if you pardon the expression, or, rather, croutons in Mordiggian's morning meal.
> Well, Namirrah *was* violating the edicts of a
> god. From Prometheus onward (and doubtles before)
> this is a pretty sure way of getting stomped.
>
Yes; but from Prometheus onwards, the non-fictional gods have all embodied, to varying degrees, their worshippers' morality. Zeus doesn't care about buggering off with a comely lass, but he's pretty down on killing a suppliant.
> No question there. I don't even know what Smith
> believed in, only that I find his worldview and
> moral sensibilities, as is evidenced in his
> stories, to be very stimulating and intruiging.
>
Perhaps this is another area that you could write upon: the moral universe of CAS.
> must the POV, itself, be subject to a moral code in order
> for there to be a moral perspective; and if the
> POV is not subject to such a code, is it possible
> for the work in question to be other than amoral?
>
That's like asking the related question: can a moral code be created independently of the creator, or must it come from the creator?
Ciao!
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]