One of the things about Smith's characterization that appeals to me is that he tends not to use stock characters in major roles (or often even supporting) roles. It struck me today that he has characterized several wizards, and while it is a great temptation to portray them as having similar characteristics and motivations, Smith does a pretty damned good job of differntiating them so that they remain distinct, in my mind, at least.

For example: Sambon from Witchcraft of Ulua; Maal Dweb from The Flower Women; Vemdeez from Isle of the Torturers; Avyctes from Double Shadow, Namirrah from Dark Eidolon. Each of these seems to me to be a distinct individual first, and a wizard secondly, although not all of them are primary characters.

I re-read The Flower Women this AM, over a breve and croissant. I was tremendously amused by Smith's portrayal of the floral vampires, their simple motivations, and how Maal Dweb feels toward them. This is a pretty good example of Smith mixing a lot of ambivalent motivations, and thus giving the reader something to sink his/her teeth into in what would otherwise be nothing more than escapist fiction.

These vampires are quite simple, and far from evil--as far from evil as a cat is when it catches birds. Once on the right side of them (this position being attained by Maal Dweb thru the use of a few simple skills) they are gossipy and almost giddy. Maal Dweb actually has a sort of warm spot for them, but--and this is an example of what I mean by "mixed motivations"--this certainly doesn't stop him from formulating a plan that will require that the vampire he is most familiar with will necessarily die so that he can attain his goal of arse-kicking a bunch of reptilian johnnies-come-lately. In this regard, it's hard not to view Maal Dweb as a city slicker seducing a bunch of farm girls.

...or is this the practice of realpolitik on Votalp?

...and all this because he is bored--bored enough to speak aloud to a girl he had petrified earlier, again, largely out of boredom.

Good stuff!


--Sawfish

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

It could easily be considered that the wizard is, per se, a stock character in its own right. So then what CAS does is not so much avoid their use, rather, use them in such a way as to bring out individual traits that conspire to make them individuals, their stock nature forgotten.

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]

voleboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It could easily be considered that the wizard is,
> per se, a stock character in its own right.

It is, if you pull a wizard out of your hat to make use of their powers, as a sort of deus ex machina, to resolve the plot. But that's not what he does. Wizards as fully as likely to be blindsided by plot elements that are out of their control as is the least sophisticated goat herder.

It is all the more dramatic a fall when a wizard is involved, since both the wizard, and the reader, think that wizards are somehow far too knowledgable to screw up.

> So
> then what CAS does is not so much avoid their use,
> rather, use them in such a way as to bring out
> individual traits that conspire to make them
> individuals, their stock nature forgotten.

That's my analysis, FWIW.

In Smith's fictional universe, being a wizard is a lot like being a nuclear physicist, and just as Oppenheimer was unlike Teller, so is Avyctes unlike Namirrah, whereas Maal Dweb was entirely different, still.

These are all excellent points, gang. This would make a good piece for LOST WORLDS. I hope that someone will write it up, especially since CAS is not often given high marks for his skill at characterizations. Contact me off list.Speaking of which, I am proofreading the second issue as I type this. This issue was delayed due to computer problems at the publisher's, plus a last-minute reshuffling. This issue contains a review of Smith's poetry by Fred Chappell, among other treats.
Best,
Scott

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is, if you pull a wizard out of your hat to
> make use of their powers, as a sort of deus ex
> machina, to resolve the plot. But that's not what
> he does. Wizards as fully as likely to be
> blindsided by plot elements that are out of their
> control as is the least sophisticated goat
> herder.
>
> It is all the more dramatic a fall when a wizard
> is involved, since both the wizard, and the
> reader, think that wizards are somehow far too
> knowledgable to screw up.
>
I'm not exactly in agreement with you. I see wizards like barbarian heroes... pretty much a standard in terms of fantasy. Their use as a deus ex machina is not as hackneyed as their mere existance, but it comes close, I'm sure.

Where I am in agreement is with the characterisation of the wizards. CAS, through his characterisation proves that he is adept t taking the familiar tropes, and making them unique for that story. Namirrha may seem at a superficial level to be just another evil wizard seeking revenge for a wrong, imagined or not, but he proves individual with the extent and complexity of his revenge, and with the essentially sardonic nature. Everywhere, we read of hooves, as per horses, or trampling, as in the diners trampled as grapes.

At the same time, his hubris is intereting. He doesn't want to be better than the gods, he just goes against the god's self-interest, and that is his ultimate downfall.

As for writing this material up, I'm sure Sawfish can do us all justice. I'm off to work on a bibliography.

voleboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It is, if you pull a wizard out of your hat
> to
> > make use of their powers, as a sort of deus
> ex
> > machina, to resolve the plot. But that's not
> what
> > he does. Wizards as fully as likely to be
> > blindsided by plot elements that are out of
> their
> > control as is the least sophisticated goat
> > herder.
> >
> > It is all the more dramatic a fall when a
> wizard
> > is involved, since both the wizard, and the
> > reader, think that wizards are somehow far
> too
> > knowledgable to screw up.
> >
> I'm not exactly in agreement with you. I see
> wizards like barbarian heroes... pretty much a
> standard in terms of fantasy. Their use as a deus
> ex machina is not as hackneyed as their mere
> existance, but it comes close, I'm sure.

This is an interesting wrinkle, Phillip!

If I understand your point, the very act of including a wizard in the context of a fantasy story is a cliche, rather like using a gunslinger in a Western, or a private-eye in a mystery. And since a wizard is an exeocted part of the standard fabric of the fantasy landscape, so, too, are heroic warriors, witches, etc. Therefore, to avoid using such a cliched device, a writer would have to use less expected roles when creating characters: goatherds, thieves, weavers, etc.

I can see your point, but within the confines of the short story, it is certainly more expedient to take advantage of certain expected characteristics. If, for example, one wishes to explore some aspect of the supernatural, one might have the protagonist be a blacksmith, but one must in that case provide the sort to of additional background that would explain why a blacksmith would be dealing with agents of the supernatural. This is better suited to a much longer narrative form.


>
> Where I am in agreement is with the
> characterisation of the wizards. CAS, through his
> characterisation proves that he is adept t taking
> the familiar tropes, and making them unique for
> that story. Namirrha may seem at a superficial
> level to be just another evil wizard seeking
> revenge for a wrong, imagined or not, but he
> proves individual with the extent and complexity
> of his revenge, and with the essentially sardonic
> nature. Everywhere, we read of hooves, as per
> horses, or trampling, as in the diners trampled as
> grapes.
>
> At the same time, his hubris is intereting. He
> doesn't want to be better than the gods, he just
> goes against the god's self-interest, and that is
> his ultimate downfall.

Yep. Smith is a very conventionally moral person, it seems. He might disagree with what constitutes "good" and "evil", but once established, he's pretty sure to punish "evil" consistently. This makes for a satisfying resolution, if the reader can get tuned-in to Smith's moral landscape.

Therefore, you have Zotulla, a life-long dissolute who is only self-indulgent within the normal understanding of the word, warring in the climactic sequence with Namirrah, insanely self-centered to the degree that, after HUGE success as a wizard (perhpas owing, in part, to the very incident he wishes to avenge), he is still embittered by Zotulla's early actions, to the degree that, in his thirst for vengence, he is willing to completely destroy the entire kingdom, and risk the emnity of supernatural beings, just to even an old *personal* score.

This is hubris, indeed. So, Smith has Thasaidon pimp-slap him down, for come-uppance.

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If I understand your point, the very act of
> including a wizard in the context of a fantasy
> story is a cliche, rather like using a gunslinger
> in a Western, or a private-eye in a mystery.

Exactly. And it's even more of a cliche to make said wizard evil, and opposed by a barbarian hero. As I said, though, it's what you do with them that matters. So what CAS does is important to seeing his wizard characters as individuals.

> Therefore, to avoid using such a cliched device, a writer would
> have to use less expected roles when creating characters:
> goatherds, thieves, weavers, etc.
>
Which CAS also does, in "Xeethra", with Xeethra the goat-herder. Here, he encounters the marvellous in a natural fashion, as part of his travels as a goat-herd. This takes into account, in part, the need to develop a sort of character, like that blacksmith you mention, who has dealings with the unknown.

> This is better suited to a much longer narrative
> form.
>
Unless happenstance ("Xeethra"), or mileiu ("The Charnel God"), or plain bad fortune ("Necromancy in Naat") occur.

> Yep. Smith is a very conventionally moral person,
> it seems. He might disagree with what constitutes
> "good" and "evil", but once established, he's
> pretty sure to punish "evil" consistently. This
> makes for a satisfying resolution, if the reader
> can get tuned-in to Smith's moral landscape.
>
You might discard morality completely, and argue that the gods and other forces are putting humans in their rightful places. Ie. ants belong in the ant-hill, not waving defiance at the lightning. It doesn't matter if you call the force a god or a natural law, humans can no more preveail against something that big and uncaring, than they could stop a hurtling truck with a fleshy speed bump.

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:

>
> > This is better suited to a much longer
> narrative
> > form.
> >
> Unless happenstance ("Xeethra"), or mileiu ("The
> Charnel God"), or plain bad fortune ("Necromancy
> in Naat") occur.
>
> > Yep. Smith is a very conventionally moral
> person,
> > it seems. He might disagree with what
> constitutes
> > "good" and "evil", but once established,
> he's
> > pretty sure to punish "evil" consistently.
> This
> > makes for a satisfying resolution, if the
> reader
> > can get tuned-in to Smith's moral landscape.
>
> >
> You might discard morality completely, and argue
> that the gods and other forces are putting humans
> in their rightful places. Ie. ants belong in the
> ant-hill, not waving defiance at the lightning. It
> doesn't matter if you call the force a god or a
> natural law, humans can no more preveail against
> something that big and uncaring, than they could
> stop a hurtling truck with a fleshy speed bump.
>

But this sounds like you are proposing that Smith is amoral, and I could not agree with that. For a comparison of the most amoral fictional character I am aware of, see Patricia Highsmith's Ripley. It is an astoundingly bleak landscape, once you get dialed into what's going on.

Now, I'd actually say that HPL's tone is closer to amoral than Smith's, but when you get right down to it, it's still hell-and-damnation both of them are up to. They just change the conventional "Judgement Day" to coincide with Cthlulu's wake-up call, or the young king pulling the ring off his finger in Isle of the Torturers. It's the same as Revelations, really. It's just not Jehovah doing the arse-kicking, it's another, less familiar super-authority that doles out the kharmic adjustments.

But Highsmith is up to something else, entirely. I wish I could name some other works that were so profoundly amoral.

...and believe me, Phillip, I used ot pride myself on being above that sort of stuff: no religious upbringing, whatsoever, etc. I read several of the Ripley series, and realized that Highsmith's greatest contribution is the creation of a character so completely self-centered that he has distorted his perception of reality to allow himself, basically, to kill his friends over a matter of personal convenience. Not enjoy it! Heavens, no! He *had* to, to save face. I had to actually quit reading the series, I found it so profoundly disturbing.

Now, *this* is amorality, for my money.

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> voleboy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sawfish Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
[snippage]
> >
> > Where I am in agreement is with the
> > characterisation of the wizards. CAS, through
> his
> > characterisation proves that he is adept t
> taking
> > the familiar tropes, and making them unique
> for
> > that story. Namirrha may seem at a
> superficial
> > level to be just another evil wizard seeking
> > revenge for a wrong, imagined or not, but he
> > proves individual with the extent and
> complexity
> > of his revenge, and with the essentially
> sardonic
> > nature. Everywhere, we read of hooves, as
> per
> > horses, or trampling, as in the diners
> trampled as
> > grapes.
> >
> > At the same time, his hubris is intereting.
> He
> > doesn't want to be better than the gods, he
> just
> > goes against the god's self-interest, and
> that is
> > his ultimate downfall.
>
> Yep. Smith is a very conventionally moral person,
> it seems. He might disagree with what constitutes
> "good" and "evil", but once established, he's
> pretty sure to punish "evil" consistently. This
> makes for a satisfying resolution, if the reader
> can get tuned-in to Smith's moral landscape.

Then how is it that in "The Maze of the Enchanter"/"Maze of Maal Dweb" he reverses the usual formula of heroic fantasy by not only have the wizard beat the presume hero, but he also "gets" the girl, if only as a lawn ornament?


>
> Therefore, you have Zotulla, a life-long dissolute
> who is only self-indulgent within the normal
> understanding of the word, warring in the
> climactic sequence with Namirrah, insanely
> self-centered to the degree that, after HUGE
> success as a wizard (perhpas owing, in part, to
> the very incident he wishes to avenge), he is
> still embittered by Zotulla's early actions, to
> the degree that, in his thirst for vengence, he is
> willing to completely destroy the entire kingdom,
> and risk the emnity of supernatural beings, just
> to even an old *personal* score.
>
> This is hubris, indeed. So, Smith has Thasaidon
> pimp-slap him down, for come-uppance.

I view Namirrah/Zotulla as a pair of twins, essentially identical as with the Carnsby brothers in "The Return of the Sorcerer," and the story as an account of what is essentially self-destruction. But that's me.

Best, Scott

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> But this sounds like you are proposing that Smith
> is amoral, and I could not agree with that. For a
> comparison of the most amoral fictional character
> I am aware of, see Patricia Highsmith's Ripley. It
> is an astoundingly bleak landscape, once you get
> dialed into what's going on.
>
Not at all; Smith could be as moral as he likes, but it is the stories that are important, not the story-teller. It is the characters who face an amoral world, irregardless of what they hold on to, and since they face it, and it faces them, it is the world that, ultimately, decides their fates irrespective of the values they hold. We can not consider the gods of Zothique as good, in any conventional morality. Some appear evil, yes, but Mordiggian is a point -- he is amoral, and only serving to devour the dead, being, in essence a god of an impartial, uncaring and amoral death. Thasaidon comes close to evil, but here he is more self-serving, concerned more with the fact that he will lose a useful servant than a faithful servant, in Zotulla. Again, it is action against his interests that causes him to kill Namirrha, not a violation of a moral code per se.

In essence, we must forget what CAS believed in, when we assess the characters of the individual inhabitants of his stories, and especially when we pontificate on such topics as morality and hubris.

*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:

> Yep. Smith is a very conventionally moral person,
> it seems. He might disagree with what constitutes
> "good" and "evil", but once established, he's
> pretty sure to punish "evil" consistently. This
> makes for a satisfying resolution, if the reader
> can get tuned-in to Smith's moral landscape.

Then how is it that in "The Maze of the Enchanter"/"Maze of Maal Dweb" he reverses the usual formula of heroic fantasy by not only have the wizard beat the presume hero, but he also "gets" the girl, if only as a lawn ornament?

Exactly--to say nothing of the fact that innocent, or at least relatively innocent, CAS protagonists often come to a bad end, in general, with "evil" (whatever that is) triumphant in the end. One sees this outcome in stories as varied as "Genius Loci", "The Seven Geases", and "The Plutonian Drug", to name but a few.

voleboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > But this sounds like you are proposing that
> Smith
> > is amoral, and I could not agree with that.
> For a
> > comparison of the most amoral fictional
> character
> > I am aware of, see Patricia Highsmith's
> Ripley. It
> > is an astoundingly bleak landscape, once you
> get
> > dialed into what's going on.
> >
> Not at all; Smith could be as moral as he likes,
> but it is the stories that are important, not the
> story-teller.

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.

> It is the characters who face an
> amoral world, irregardless of what they hold on
> to, and since they face it, and it faces them, it
> is the world that, ultimately, decides their fates
> irrespective of the values they hold.

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.

> We can not
> consider the gods of Zothique as good, in any
> conventional morality. Some appear evil, yes, but
> Mordiggian is a point -- he is amoral, and only
> serving to devour the dead, being, in essence a
> god of an impartial, uncaring and amoral death.

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.

> Thasaidon comes close to evil, but here he is more
> self-serving, concerned more with the fact that he
> will lose a useful servant than a faithful
> servant, in Zotulla. Again, it is action against
> his interests that causes him to kill Namirrha,
> not a violation of a moral code per se.

Well, Namirrah *was* violating the edicts of a god. From Prometheus onward (and doubtles before) this is a pretty sure way of getting stomped.

Now, from the POV of a god, they do whatever they want. Gods, you see, are capricous and arbitrary, as Job can tell us. This is why Ripley is a tough nut to swallow: this guy has the morality of Zeus.

>
> In essence, we must forget what CAS believed in,
> when we assess the characters of the individual
> inhabitants of his stories, and especially when we
> pontificate on such topics as morality and hubris.

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.

>
> "Vole (noun): rodent with an interesting
> population dynamic, and a tendency to giggle at
> sporrans. Best before 06/06/2066."
>
> *Visit my homepage:

This is a helluva good discussion. It brings up some important considerations, one of which is the role of POV when establishing the moral tone of the work in question. More succintly: 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?



--Sawfish

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

Scott Connors Wrote:

<SNIP>

> >
> > Yep. Smith is a very conventionally moral
> person,
> > it seems. He might disagree with what
> constitutes
> > "good" and "evil", but once established,
> he's
> > pretty sure to punish "evil" consistently.
> This
> > makes for a satisfying resolution, if the
> reader
> > can get tuned-in to Smith's moral landscape.
>
>
> Then how is it that in "The Maze of the
> Enchanter"/"Maze of Maal Dweb" he reverses the
> usual formula of heroic fantasy by not only have
> the wizard beat the presume hero, but he also
> "gets" the girl, if only as a lawn ornament?

Good point.

But I think that Maze of MD is the story of a guy screwing around with a god, and as a result, gets to become an ape, while his girlfiend ends up--as you say--a lawn ornament for a bored quasi-diety. The POV is the hunter's, as I recall. He might just as well be trying to stop Lida from messing around with the swan--or vice-versa, I guess.

So, yes, I still do think that there is a conventional morality at work in this story: mortal screws with the will of a god and gets his hide nailed to the wall. Typical patriarchal formula, right?

However, you have convinced me that Smith doesn't always convey a moral tone.

Interesting. In The Flower Women, Maal Dweb is the main character. Maal Dweb has many of the aspects traditionally associated with a god: the bugger is damnded near omniscient, what with that nifty planetarium, and pretty close to invincible. Of principal significance, *there is no other entity in the story to whom he might be accountable*. His main personal problem seems to be the ennui that seeps in from lacking a sufficient challenge. I see this as truly amoral.

I'd guess that this is the case, too, with Malygrys (sp?) when he wants to revisit his past (there are other intersting considerations, too, in this story), but in Death of Malygrys, the main character is the King (or his wizard side-kick--now *there's* a twin pairing for you!). *They* decide to "pull a Namirrah" and mess with the authority of someone higher up, who, again, is a heck of a lot like a god, being able to fend off death so as to mete out vengence.

See? To me, these are pretty much conventional partriarchal themes.

>
>
> >
> > Therefore, you have Zotulla, a life-long
> dissolute
> > who is only self-indulgent within the normal
> > understanding of the word, warring in the
> > climactic sequence with Namirrah, insanely
> > self-centered to the degree that, after HUGE
> > success as a wizard (perhpas owing, in part,
> to
> > the very incident he wishes to avenge), he
> is
> > still embittered by Zotulla's early actions,
> to
> > the degree that, in his thirst for vengence,
> he is
> > willing to completely destroy the entire
> kingdom,
> > and risk the emnity of supernatural beings,
> just
> > to even an old *personal* score.
> >
> > This is hubris, indeed. So, Smith has
> Thasaidon
> > pimp-slap him down, for come-uppance.
>
> I view Namirrah/Zotulla as a pair of twins,
> essentially identical as with the Carnsby brothers
> in "The Return of the Sorcerer," and the story as
> an account of what is essentially
> self-destruction. But that's me.

OK.

The way I see the pairing is that Namirrah and Zotulla are only superficially comparable: Zotulla is basically a conventionally flawed lightweight (about the worst you can say for him is that he seems to eat/drink too much, and is a blusterer), while Namirrah shares traits of no less an archetype than Ahab, or some aspects of Milton's Satan.

Good, stimulating discussion, Scott!

>
> Best, Scott
>
>




--Sawfish

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

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]

It might help this discussion to re-read what Don Fryer has written about the God-Man theme is Smith, something he picked up from Baudelaire. "Go ahead, talk among yourselves. Here's a topic--the Emperor of Dreams was neither an Emperor or a Dream. Discuss! (Now I'm getting all verklampt!)"

Scott

voleboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

In the "cycle" stories it varies, but not by much.

>
> > 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?

These are fascinating questions!

I've thought long and hard on the problem of "morality" (or "ethiccs"), and while I certainly have nothing new to contribute to this area of philosophy--far greater minds than mine have plowed over this field countless times--I can say that I have gotten my head partway around it.

If we come at the discussion from the assumption that there is a diety, much of what follows is worthless. Beginning with the postmodernist assumption that their is no God, nor external order, it would follow that morality is the creation or adoption of those who are capable of consciously practicing its tenets. And, since what is considered moral varies a great deal in both time and place, we have to conclude that it is not absolute, but relative.

Further, it seems that there is "individual" vs "group" morality: the individual has his/her own code--which overlaps (or is overlapped by) the collective morality of the group, but is very seldom congruent with it. To the degree that the individual's morality is consonant with the group's, that individual can co-exist with the group, as a whole.

To make matters worse, "morality" as such, tends to be unrecorded, and is quite vague and fuzzy. I'd argue that "law" is an attempt to record all aspects of a group morality that represent the minimum standard of accepted moral behavior.

So, to answer your questions: since my assumption is that there are no supernatural beings, this cannot be answered in a meaningful way; however, in the artificial universe of a fantasy writer (and I'm excluding religious texts here), the Top Dog's morality prevails, but only to the degree that s/he wants to make it stick. Since, by definition, they *are* the top dog, and answer to no one, they are bound only by their own whims (and this is the basis for most moral behvior, in my opinion), and the degree to which these whims are consistent is the degree to which their desires can be predicted and satisified by rituals.

>
> > 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.

I just this instant re-read the story, and am in accord with you on this.

> 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.

...and this seems to serve no purpose except to advance the plot. It is pretty much arbitrary and unsupported by anything else in the story.

I guess that this is an example of the whimsical morals of a god, huh?

> 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.

Right you are!

As an aside, as regards amoral behavior: the main necormancer--whose name escapes me at the moment--engaged in what I might call amoral behavior. Very like Ripley! He lusts strongly after the noblewoman, who is *far* beyond his reach socially. So, for no other reason than self-indulgence in the extreme, he *kills* her, then reanimates her in the temple. He is also all set to screw Mordiggian by making off with a legitmate corpse, AND he is fixing to kill the noblewoman's lover, as a replacement. (This seems to make little or no sense, in terms of what happens.)

>
> > 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,

Exactly what is a "non-fictional" god?

> to varying
> degrees, their worshippers' morality.

Right. Since they don't actually exist, they share a lot of the morality, or least, the sensibilities, of their creators--who, ironically, like to claim that they are taking the god's authority to legitmize their own code of behavior. The ultimate in circular logic...

> 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.

Hah, hah! This will happen about the time Mordiggian goes vegan.

>
> > 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?

It would seem to me that no moral code exists independently of a creator.





--Sawfish

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