Perhaps we can agree that both Lovecraft, and Smith, and Leiber, all three of them belong, their work belongs in the realm of poetic consciousness. But the act of moralizing over them, and over their work, and in recent years even calling on censorship of their and other contemporaries' work, belongs in the realm of sociological consciousness.

Anyway, I hear that Leiber's "The Black Gondolier" is good. Any of you have read it?

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> CAS's most effective characters are selected from
> strata that we're unlikely to have ever
> met--profoundly warped characters in the mold of
> Charles Manson, obsessives like Faust, and other
> such exotics. He lets us see inside their
> psyches.
>
>

Spot on. And that is part of CAS's attraction for me. He creates his own complete fantasy milieu. Not simply copying the mundane Earth around him, its landscape views, and characters. He has also pointed this out in his letters, that he preferred to create everything in his worlds; discussing this with Lovecraft, who preferred to stay with one foot in the world. Is not CAS's approach the purest form of fantasy?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 19 Sep 21 | 01:15PM by Knygatin.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > CAS's most effective characters are selected
> from
> > strata that we're unlikely to have ever
> > met--profoundly warped characters in the mold
> of
> > Charles Manson, obsessives like Faust, and
> other
> > such exotics. He lets us see inside their
> > psyches.
> >
> >
>
> Spot on. And that is part of CAS's attraction for
> me. He creates his own complete fantasy milieu.
> Not simply copying the mundane Earth around him,
> its landscape views, and characters. He has also
> pointed this out in his letters, that he preferred
> to create everything in his worlds; discussing
> this with Lovecraft, who preferred to stay with
> one foot in the world. Is not CAS's approach the
> purest form of fantasy?


Quick question, K.

For a long time I have often taken greater interest in the antagonist than in the protagonist. I felt this profoundly in Milton's Paradise Lost.

Now, you get a lot of sorta "campy" exaggerations, such as Hannibal Lechter, but better drawn characters (none of which come to mind right now) have seemed to me much more interesting in their motives and their worldview.

This doesn't mean that I agree with these outlooks, but often they are comprehensible as they relate to satisfying the id. Conversely, when protagonists seem to do the "right" thing without apparent effort or inner struggle, this is unconvincing to me.

Hah! So I guess a convincing and interesting protagonist is one who with great effort resists the id for the sake of the "good", while the interesting antagonist accepts the dictates of the id at face value and seeks to satisfy them.

When either simply does "good" because they like it, or "bad" because they like it, it's uninteresting to me.

--Sawfish

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

"It's probably the same reason I don't watch James Bond films anymore."

I totally understand that. I read all of the Ian Fleming novels and was a fan of all the films back in the day, but cannot bear to watch five minutes of one now. They're grotesque. There is definitely a bit of the same thing going on with F&GM, for me as well, though to his credit I think Leiber evolved somewhat (maybe "slightly" would be more accurate) over the course of his career in that respect (with the exception of "The Bait", LOL, and some other missteps).

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps we can agree that both Lovecraft, and
> Smith, and Leiber, all three of them belong, their
> work belongs in the realm of poetic consciousness.
> But the act of moralizing over them, and over
> their work, and in recent years even calling on
> censorship of their and other contemporaries'
> work, belongs in the realm of sociological
> consciousness.
>
> Anyway, I hear that Leiber's "The Black Gondolier"
> is good. Any of you have read it?

Yes (I believe I've read all of Leiber's short stories). Do you mean the collection as a whole or the eponymous story? I recall liking the story well enough, though it's not a favorite. If I recall correctly, the premise has something to do with Venice, California (hence the gondolier reference) and was one his more gimmicky "horror" shorts. I much prefer his more semi-autobiographical horror such as "Horrible Imagining" or Our Lady of Darkness. But definitely worth giving a try, like most of his work.

I'm still getting up to speed on your poetic/sociological consciousness dichotomy, but if you mean that these three authors themselves are engaging in purely poetic expression *without* trying to "moralize" or make some sort of social commentary, I'm not sure that's so much the case with Lovecraft and Leiber as it might well be with Smith. I certainly understand the appeal of art for arts sake, and I think CAS is closer to that than the others. Pardon if I'm misunderstanding.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 19 Sep 21 | 02:04PM by Radovarl.

Radovarl Wrote:

> I'm still getting up to speed on your
> poetic/sociological consciousness dichotomy, but
> if you mean that these three authors themselves
> are engaging in purely poetic expression *without*
> trying to "moralize" or make some sort of social
> commentary, I'm not sure that's so much the case
> with Lovecraft and Leiber as it might well be with
> Smith. I certainly understand the appeal of art
> for arts sake, and I think CAS is closer to that
> than the others. Pardon if I'm misunderstanding.

Radovarl, I have no copyright for "poetic consciousness" vs. "sociological consciousness," but was the party who introduced them here at ED about two months ago.

You'll find a thread with many postings that discusses this topic, here at ED. Relevant to the topic also is an earlier thread on the buffered self vs. the porous self. The buffered self is characteristic of sociological consciousness, while the porous self is common with poetic consciousness.

The academic discipline of sociology is different from "sociological consciousness." Sociology I take to be a tool that may be some utility for some lines of inquiry. But sociological consciousness perceives sociology as more or less adequate to the full range of specifically human experience. (It would allow the value of biology and chemistry to some aspects of human experience, but these would generally be ones we chare with animals, matters of DNA, glands, diseases, etc.) Sociological consciousness is attention to those things that sociology can deal with, and the assumption that these things are "all there is" for our reality as human beings. This I take to be the normal state of consciousness of educated people in North America, Europe, etc. Donald Trump and Ibram X. Kenid both, so far as I can tell, understand the world in terms of "sociological consciousness." Election campaigns will be run on the basis of sociological consciousness, and the contending platforms will be, basically, documents written from within that state of attention. Children in public schools, students and faculty in universities, popular entertainers and journalists, philosophers and doctors, etc. may go day by day and hardly suspect there could be more possibilities than sociological consciousness perceives.

Robert Aickman wrote of the "beliefs that one day, by the application of reason and the scientific method, everything will be known, and every problem and unhappiness solved." This Enlightenment view is close to "sociological consciousness.

In contrast to it is what I take to have been the consciousness of most people who have ever lived. Here is something a Russian statesman wrote:

“Only fools have clear conceptions of everything. The most cherished ideas of the human mind are found in the depths and in twilight: around these confused ideas which we cannot classify revolve clear thoughts, extending, developing, and becoming elevated. If this deeper mental plane were to be taken away, there would remain but geometricians and intelligent animals; even the exact sciences would lose their present grandeur, which depends upon a hidden correlation with eternal truths, of which we catch a glimpse only at rare moments. Mystery is the most precious possession of mankind. Not in vain did Plato teach that all below is but a weak image of the order reigning above. It may be, indeed, that the grandest function of the loveliness we see is the awakening of desire for a higher loveliness we see not; and that the enchantment of great poets springs less from the pictures they paint than from the distant echoes they awaken from the invisible world.”

The Russian statesman's view is flowery, empty language from the point of view of sociological consciousness. S. C. being typically focused on social power, people will naturally tend to dismiss or mistrust the statement just quoted. "Mystery is the most precious possession of mankind" -- ! Try saying that in any college classroom and watch what happens.

For sociological consciousness, "mystery" can mean only puzzles that, in principle, we can resolve if we apply our methods to the necessary data -- data which They might be trying to keep from us!!

For poetic consciousness, mystery can mean that sort of thing but, much more, and distinctly, it can mean something that inherently can't be resolved, reduced, to knowledge. Mystery in this sense can be contemplated -- or it can be, by sociological consciousness, ignored, denied, explained away, traduced.

OK, I hope that helps.

Now it seems to me that a tool like this can help us to get at some interesting things in connection with authors that people here at ED like to read. For example, I have a thesis, that Lovecraft was a profoundly divided man. With one side of himself, he experienced poetic consciousness: for example, when he contemplated sunsets across the old roofs of his beloved Providence. But with the other side of himself he was aligned with the typical modern outlook described by Aickman. Lovecraft's letters are replete with "sociological consciousness." Conversely, Arthur Machen remained within the bounds of poetic consciousness. Read his best book, Far-Off Things (his first autobiography). The taproot that grew in his boyhood remains alive, drawing nourishment from memories of Usk but also present experience of wandering London suburbs and gathering over wine with cronies. He not only appreciates poetry in the wide sense -- imaginative literature as discussed in another of his best books, Hieroglyphics (we have a thread about that here at ED -- but his life itself is poetic. Is George W. Bush's or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's?

Children, I believe, begin life experiencing poetic consciousness, but it is soon pushed to the margins by TV, internet games, school indoctrination, etc. Fortunately, some children fare better, outside the system.

Finally, I think sociological consciousness prevails in some writers of fantasy. If an author demonstrates an ironic amusement towards his own invented world, and needs you the reader to know he's a sophisticated person, well... he might move fantasy-type pieces around on the board, but perhaps little real poetry will be involved. Cabell? Dunsany? They might not be happy with the "sociological" regime around them; but they don't have much hope that there really is anything much else........

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps we can agree that both Lovecraft, and
> Smith, and Leiber, all three of them belong, their
> work belongs in the realm of poetic consciousness.
> But the act of moralizing over them, and over
> their work, and in recent years even calling on
> censorship of their and other contemporaries'
> work, belongs in the realm of sociological
> consciousness.


That might not be what I'd say, Knygatin. Poetic consciousness typically recognizes an objective moral standard. There is rather impressive agreement -- despite what we are told by the sociologically conscious -- between various cultures, about such moral matters as respect due elders, the virtues of loyalty, fidelity, courage, trustworthiness, patience, self-control, modesty, etc.

Sociological consciousness takes just certain elements of morality and distorts and inflates them. For example, it takes one of the virtues -- fairness -- and distorts it, like a face out of proportion thanks to goiter, say. In the name of fairness (now dubbed "equity") it may exhibit deficiency as regards other equally important virtues, such as prudence, self-control, justice, temperance,* etc.

I do understand that there is a difference between politicized "moralizing" and making legitimate moral judgments. The latter is essential. The former is apt to be a nuisance or worse as we see with various current events.

*"Temperance" means more than just sue measure in consumption of strong drink. A man who drinks too much is intemperate, but so is a squalling mob of students shouting down a teacher who is trying to get a hearing for a reasonable opinion.

""Temperance" means more than just sue measure" -- sorry, that's supposed to be DUE measure.

And I don’t mean to imply that the false belief Aickman noted, that through reason and scientific method every problem and unhappiness would be solved, was Lovecraft’s; HPL wasn’t a progressive at least mist of his life; but I do think he thought of problems that he saw as basically social, and that would probably worsen, but theoretically could improve if certain types of people would go away. Furthermore I’ve read that he was becoming somewhat socialistic late in life. This thread, of course, is not dedicated to the discussion of HPL; I wanted to refer to him in a reply to comments about poetic consciousness and sociological consciousness made here and in other places.

Good points Sawfish, about the complexity of protagonists and antagonists. The more easy way out, of ignoring such complexity, usually results in lame or stale stories.

Radovarl, I meant the short-story "The Black Gondolier", not the collection. Hearing your description of it, I don't think it sounds like an overly interesting read for me. But I may eventually come around to it, in an old Ace paperback I have.

Dale, I understand your argument on the different levels of moralizing.



Back to defining the purest forms of fantasy. Instead of copying sights from the world, the more developed fantasy artist seeks inspiration from what he sees and then creates something uniquely his own. He doesn't simply use technical skills to create an illusion of realism or naturalism (something very common today in "fantasy art"; something I blame on the ever increasing materialism of society), but also uses poetic interpretation of what he sees.
Now, I don' believe a human being living on Earth can completely detach himself and his images from the Earth (except possibly through deeper astral levels of consciousness). But much can be done creatively to reinterpret and reshape what one sees, through poetic consciousness. That is the path to purer forms of fantasy. C. A. Smith strove towards this in a complete sense when painting his canvas.
Both Lovecraft and Leiber (and Howard) preferred to keep one foot in the world, for the sense of realism. But still with a subtle sense of poetry for that half too. Leiber and Howard taking it one step further, choosing to recreate lost times of the world and society.
But really, ... I am fumbling here in the realms of sociological consciousness, trying to define what these poetic geniuses were doing. ... How futile. How heavy-handed. One should be quiet really, and simply appreciate. And if one wants to make a personal statement, it should be through creativity in the same vein. Criticism, ah what a waste of effort.

Thanks, guys. I think I now understand the distinction you're drawing between the two types of consciousness. As one perhaps overly-indoctrinated into institutional, and therefore if I understand correctly, "sociological" modes of conceiving of the world, I should probably take a few days to mull over the notion before I attempt to contribute anything further to the discussion. Despite being trained as a sociologist (to be clear, I have never *worked* as a sociologist), I am sympathetic to those who view life from a primarily "poetic" perspective if I am not indeed one such. I suspect many of the concepts in my own hyper-socialized (a good read in this regard is Dennis K. Wrong's "The Oversocialized Conception of Man in Modern Sociology") toolbox (see, instrumental thinking!) "marry up" to these in what might be interesting ways, but it'll take some rumination to sort it all out.

Am I correct in surmising that you (all) feel that the "sociological" side of the dichotomy has been granted an overwhelmingly privileged status in (at least) the modern worldview, and that the "poetic" side has been impoverished as a result? (with the obvious exception of the some of the writers being discussed)?

[EDIT: I will also do some background reading in the other threads devoted to the topic, as you suggest.]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 20 Sep 21 | 05:58AM by Radovarl.

Knygatin Wrote:

> Back to defining the purest forms of fantasy.
> Instead of copying sights from the world, the more
> developed fantasy artist seeks inspiration from
> what he sees and then creates something uniquely
> his own. He doesn't simply use technical skills to
> create an illusion of realism or naturalism
> (something very common today in "fantasy art";
> something I blame on the ever increasing
> materialism of society), but also uses poetic
> interpretation of what he sees.
> Now, I don' believe a human being living on Earth
> can completely detach himself and his images from
> the Earth (except possibly through deeper astral
> levels of consciousness). But much can be done
> creatively to reinterpret and reshape what one
> sees, through poetic consciousness. That is the
> path to purer forms of fantasy. C. A. Smith strove
> towards this in a complete sense when painting his
> canvas.
> Both Lovecraft and Leiber (and Howard) preferred
> to keep one foot in the world, for the sense of
> realism. But still with a subtle sense of poetry
> for that half too. Leiber and Howard taking it one
> step further, choosing to recreate lost times of
> the world and society.
> But really, ... I am fumbling here in the realms
> of sociological consciousness, trying to define
> what these poetic geniuses were doing. ... How
> futile. How heavy-handed. One should be quiet
> really, and simply appreciate. And if one wants to
> make a personal statement, it should be through
> creativity in the same vein. Criticism, ah what a
> waste of effort.

Knygatin, I begin today's postings at ED with the request that you would send a list of works in which you find exhibited this quality you love. That would be a valuable resource.

As I recall, works you have identified, here at ED, as exhibiting this genius include:

The magazine version of "The Moon Pool" by A. Merritt
Parts, but not the whole, of Merritt's Metal Monster
Stories by CAS and Jack Vance -- could you list specific ones again?
Stories by Leiber including "The Jewels in the Forest," "The Lords of Quarmall," "The Circle Curse," "The Unholy Grail," "When the Sea-King's Away," and "The Sunken Land" plus the novel The Swords of Lankhmar
G. Meyrink's The Golem (or am I mistaken about that one?)

You approved Sir Philip Sidney's Defense of Poesy, as well.

I wonder if you would add William Hope Hodgson's The Night Land and The House on the Borderland. Eddison's Worm OUroboros? What's your view of Tolkien's Silmarillion? Tolkien generally writes about the world of the First Age (and even before it) as if it were another world, not ours. Men hardly appear in much of it, rather Elves and "Gods," and the shape of the world is very different from that of today's Earth.

You wrote favorably of Dunsany's Charwoman's Shadow, if I remember correctly, but perhaps you wouldn't group it with these favorites.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 20 Sep 21 | 11:02AM by Dale Nelson.

Excellent exchange, Radovarl.

My comments/responses, interleaved, below:

Radovarl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks, guys. I think I now understand the
> distinction you're drawing between the two types
> of consciousness. As one perhaps
> overly-indoctrinated into institutional, and
> therefore if I understand correctly,
> "sociological" modes of conceiving of the world, I
> should probably take a few days to mull over the
> notion before I attempt to contribute anything
> further to the discussion. Despite being trained
> as a sociologist

That's all right, Radovarl; none of us is perfect at ED...

;^)

> (to be clear, I have never
> *worked* as a sociologist),I am sympathetic to
> those who view life from a primarily "poetic"
> perspective if I am not indeed one such. I suspect
> many of the concepts in my own hyper-socialized (a
> good read in this regard is Dennis K. Wrong's "The
> Oversocialized Conception of Man in Modern
> Sociology") toolbox (see, instrumental thinking!)
> "marry up" to these in what might be interesting
> ways, but it'll take some rumination to sort it
> all out.

I've developed a profound mistrust of the anthropological soft sciences because of what I perceive to be an increasingly strong tendency to confirmation bias.

I *do* read some stuff relating to human interactions on the broader scale (cultural values, etc) but it's mostly to learn where the recognized "landmarks" are.

Then I take this, watch some old Jane Goodall documentaries, add my personal experiences, and combine it all, ceaselessly churning it, to come up with my worldview--which constantly evolves.

In fact, that's a big reason why I'm here, posting.

>
> Am I correct in surmising that you (all) feel that
> the "sociological" side of the dichotomy has been
> granted an overwhelmingly privileged status in (at
> least) the modern worldview, and that the "poetic"
> side has been impoverished as a result? (with the
> obvious exception of the some of the writers being
> discussed)?
>
>

I think we're still kicking it around. You'll note that I wanted to compare social consciousness (SC) with Freud's idea of the superego. To me, it *may* be a close fit, but I tend to think that poetic consciousness (PC) is a subset of the id.

I think many of us see the dichotomy as being distinct, near mutually exclusive traits within each individual, with the more socialized individuals being influenced more by SC in their daily--and perhaps personal--lives.

I see it as a sort of ying/yang complement, with SC and PC in the ascendance depending upon the situation.

But I will agree that when one or the other dominates--and especially in aspects of life that have little or no relevance to either (e.g., PC in criminal justice; SC in aesthetic appreciation), it becomes annoying and inane.

And I do agree that eras seem to value one or the other more highly, and we seem to be currently in an era where SC is *extremely* ascendant.

But these are only my personal opinions.

--Sawfish

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

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Knygatin, I begin today's postings at ED with the
> request that you would send a list of works in
> which you find exhibited this quality you love.
> That would be a valuable resource.
>
>

I am sorry, but I cannot do that. Too demanding and difficult to define which exact works that would be, and I am not certain myself. There may be glimmerings of poetic fantasy in a lot of varied works. Sure, I include Tolkien and Hodgson among them. (Never read Eddison and Meyrink.) The writers I usually talk about here, are the ones I like best I suppose, but I may like a certain book (or film) for various other reasons than pure fantasy (for instance, the sense of home in Tolkien and Lovecraft, is a big attraction). Ones' needs are complex and multileveled, and not easy to organize into a neat, square box.

But my highest artistic ideals? The purest form of fantasy in which the physical phenomena and views of the Earth are completely reshaped and recreated into something else??? I am not even sure it has ever been done completely. CAS had the ambition, but I don't think that even he reached quite all the way, except in a few passing details possibly. It may be an unrealistic ambition. But the ecstatic poetic longing for the weird, may carry it a long way.

OK, Knygatin!

If you care to add some suggested stories, though, that seem to you outstanding... go ahead!

Thanks for clarifying about Eddison and Meyrink.

I've read the first half of The Night Land[i] once or twice, but I bog down with the second half. I do mean to try again. I suppose I've read [i]The House on the Borderland four times.

Have you read Lindsay's A Voyage to Arcturus?

But I realize I'm digressing from this thread's focus on Fritz Leiber. Hope that's OK.