It would be fair, certainly, to consider all of his works, but since I'm most familiar with his themed stories, such as Hyperborea, Zothique, Averoigne, etc., I'd like to at least start with these.

It dawned on me that I was having trouble finding stories in which the narrative protagonist emerges in a positive situation, or even neutral, as compared to t he stat of the story. I think Master of the Crabs is one of these, and vaguely there are some others in the Averoigne series, especially with a certain recurring character whose name I forget. Mostly, the are the object of a malign fate.

Now, if accurate, you can see what this does to the mood of these stories?

Any comment/discussion/wholehearted castigation welcome!

--Sawfish

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 25 Sep 21 | 08:56AM by Sawfish.

CAS' protagonists often get the short end of the stick, don't they? I'm trying to think of his themed stories in which they come out well...

I suppose "The Holiness of Azederac" didn't have such an unhappy ending. The malignant sorcerer got away with fooling the Church, but the story seemed more favorable toward the monk, who let go of his religious stress to be the lover of a fun and sexy enchantress. Azederac seemed rather petty, pompous, and stressed by his power, as if cursed by his ambition. And for all I know the light that took him to Heaven could have been the soul-devouring maw of Iog-Sotôt.

"Rendezvous in Averoigne" and "Colossus of Ylourgne" both had traditional endings with the hero slaying the villain, while "The Enchantress of Sylaire" ended with the triumph of romance, even though it was all an illusion. Beyond the forests of Averoigne, there's "The Black Abbot of Puthuum", in which the Conanesque heroes get the girl, and "The Door to Saturn", in which Eibon found a people who admired his station. And "Vulthoom" ended well for both Earth and Mars, though the sardonic cosmicism made this victory rather small. I always considered "Voyage to Sfanomoe" one of CAS' happiest stories, though perishing on an alien planet isn't a traditional happily ever after.

Other than these, Smith's themed stories have rather gloomy or ambiguous fates for the heroes, but I like this. I get so sick of the fake or overblown sentimentality of popular media, and all the contrivances they pull to ensure as typical an ending as possible, even when it doesn't make sense. CAS' fiction allows cruel things to happen to humans in a morally ambiguous world, without brooding over it like a misanthropic teenager would. Maybe the sardonic humor softens the edge and makes it feel relatable rather than spiteful. It's accepting, a little realistic, and it makes me think about the morals, human follies, and unexpected circumstances of any given situation.

Another thing that softens the melancholy (for me anyway) is CAS' sense of beauty when describing supernatural, inhuman, and nightmarish situations. Perhaps some readers would feel crushed by the fate of the protagonists in "The Dweller in the Gulf", but to me the ending is a dignified acceptance of death, as it herds everyone, man and alien, down the dark abyss. Not at all happy, but the descriptions are so rich with otherworldly beauty that it dwarfs the protagonists, and puts things in a cosmic rather than moral perspective.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 28 Sep 21 | 09:21AM by Hespire.

These are some excellent and insightful points, Hespire. I would like to comment on/expand some of them, below.

Hespire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CAS' protagonists often get the short end of the
> stick, don't they? I'm trying to think of his
> themed stories in which they come out well...
>
> I suppose "The Holiness of Azederac" didn't have
> such an unhappy ending. The malignant sorcerer got
> away with fooling the Church, but the story seemed
> more favorable toward the monk, who let go of his
> religious stress to be the lover of a fun and sexy
> enchantress. Azederac seemed rather petty,
> pompous, and stressed by his power, as if cursed
> by his ambition. And for all I know the light that
> took him to Heaven could have been the
> soul-devouring maw of Iog-Sotôt.
>
> "Rendezvous in Averoigne" and "Colossus of
> Ylourgne" both had traditional endings with the
> hero slaying the villain, while "The Enchantress
> of Sylaire" ended with the triumph of romance,
> even though it was all an illusion.

The Averoigne series has, for me, a completely different "feel" than the other series. Perhaps a part of it is that the setting, and hence its bounds of credibility, is somewhat constrained by the fact that arguably Averoigne existed *in actuality*, in a remote part of medieval France, and hence must try to conform, somewhat, to the readers' expectations. We can't very well have ice sheets, or a world-ending plague, as in some of the other cycles. In a sense, you can have abnormal phenomena, but they must be localized and isolated within Averoigne, or else they'd be known to actual history.

And when you think of it, this was no mean feat. He was VERY skillful in creating this rather tricky milieu and physical setting. So he neatly avoided the "alternate history" classification by having very foul and abnormal, unnatural events take place in dark isolation.

In short, his tacit stance was "This happened, but no one outside the area ever knew about it."

And I suppose, in a way, that because France exists today as a viable nation and culture, we can infer that its ancestors met with a fair amount of success, and the stories reflect a society that, while troubled by the supernatural, were not overcome by it. We can contrast this with Hyperborea, where we know that ice did, indeed, overwhelm much of Europe, or Zothique, where the author repeatedly tells us that the earth is dying, and that the events conveyed in the stories are among the last acts of the human race.

So with Hyperborea and Zothique, there's no implied need to have the cultures, nor the inhabitants, succeed, since the readers know already that both settings are doomed.

> Beyond the
> forests of Averoigne, there's "The Black Abbot of
> Puthuum", in which the Conanesque heroes get the
> girl,

Reads like Fahfrd and the Mouser, doesn't it? Like Theft of the Thirty-nine Girdles.

> and "The Door to Saturn", in which Eibon
> found a people who admired his station.

I don't remember that one very well.

> And
> "Vulthoom" ended well for both Earth and Mars,
> though the sardonic cosmicism made this victory
> rather small.

Yep. It's like "You won the battle, but I expect to win the war."

> I always considered "Voyage to
> Sfanomoe" one of CAS' happiest stories, though
> perishing on an alien planet isn't a traditional
> happily ever after.

Not me. I was repulsed by the insidious infiltration of the protagonists' actual physical bodies by the plants.

Yech! :^)

However, I did see the resolution of "The Last Hieroglyph" as somewhat positive--you know, where the very mediocre astrologer and his mangy dog are absorbed into eternity as glyphs in the book of fate, I suppose.

>
> Other than these, Smith's themed stories have
> rather gloomy or ambiguous fates for the heroes,
> but I like this. I get so sick of the fake or
> overblown sentimentality of popular media, and all
> the contrivances they pull to ensure as typical an
> ending as possible, even when it doesn't make
> sense.

Yes, me too. It completely ruins the dramatic arc, substituting popular sentimentality for honest pathos.

> CAS' fiction allows cruel things to happen
> to humans in a morally ambiguous world, without
> brooding over it like a misanthropic teenager
> would. Maybe the sardonic humor softens the edge
> and makes it feel relatable rather than spiteful.

Good observation. Smith somehow maintains a moral and narrative distance between the narrative POV and the characters and the actions in the story. One comes away thinking that this may have been a cautionary tale (as in The Witchcraft of Ulua), but it was most certainly *not* a moral lecture. Take from it what you may.

> It's accepting, a little realistic, and it makes
> me think about the morals, human follies, and
> unexpected circumstances of any given situation.

Yes, exactly.

Hah, hah! I just remember a passage in Ulua that has stuck with me for years! It was not central to the story, but ancillary expository, telling about an ancient wizard who attained power "by putting down the insubordinations of the flesh".

For some reason this really appealed. I can sympathize with this a great deal, because I've been at constant war with fleshly impulses, really drifting over into a successful life by controlling, with significant struggle, momentary pleasures.

...to a degree... ;^)

>
> Another thing that softens the melancholy (for me
> anyway) is CAS' sense of beauty when describing
> supernatural, inhuman, and nightmarish situations.
> Perhaps some readers would feel crushed by the
> fate of the protagonists in "The Dweller in the
> Gulf", but to me the ending is a dignified
> acceptance of death, as it herds everyone, man and
> alien, down the dark abyss. Not at all happy, but
> the descriptions are so rich with otherworldly
> beauty that it dwarfs the protagonists, and puts
> things in a cosmic rather than moral perspective.

Yes!

The ending of The Weaver in the Vault--where the protagonists die in a subterranean earthquake, one after another--is one such, I think. Eerie but beautiful. Does this seem like a decent example of what you're describing?

--Sawfish

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

Quote:

And when you think of it, this was no mean feat. He was VERY skillful in creating this rather tricky milieu and physical setting. So he neatly avoided the "alternate history" classification by having very foul and abnormal, unnatural events take place in dark isolation.
In short, his tacit stance was "This happened, but no one outside the area ever knew about it."

And I suppose, in a way, that because France exists today as a viable nation and culture, we can infer that its ancestors met with a fair amount of success, and the stories reflect a society that, while troubled by the supernatural, were not overcome by it. We can contrast this with Hyperborea, where we know that ice did, indeed, overwhelm much of Europe, or Zothique, where the author repeatedly tells us that the earth is dying, and that the events conveyed in the stories are among the last acts of the human race.

An excellent perspective. In spite of all its devils and vampires, and in spite of its stories depicting the Church as ineffectual, Averoigne had the most positive conclusion of all of CAS' cycles, existing well into the 19th century, according to "The End of the Story".

And I remember one story written by HPL, "Out of the Aeons", which mentioned Averoigne in passing, proving that it persists into present or near-present times. Let me find that passage...

"The invasion of ballyhoo commenced in the spring of 1931, when a purchase of somewhat spectacular nature—that of the strange objects and inexplicably preserved bodies found in crypts beneath the almost vanished and evilly famous ruins of Château Faussesflammes, in Averoigne, France—brought the museum prominently into the news columns."

Although it was haunted, its people and its religion continued thriving into modernity, which is almost admirable in this grim, merciless, cosmic setting. Even when a monster is running amok and devouring some village girls, like the Beast of Averoigne, there is always a means of vanquishing it. Also, I always suspected that CAS sympathized with the supernatural evils and outsiders in this cycle, more than he would in other cycles. The lamia and the deceptive enchantress are shown as ideal lovers (even with the risk of death), and pagan sorcery bestows power to those outsiders who have no place among the Church or petty villagers. CAS enjoyed dancing with "sin" in his poetry, and he worshiped Passion and Beauty over orthodox tradition. Averoigne clearly embodies this, so that may be another reason it isn't as gloomy as his other settings. It has a very lustful spirit.

Quote:

> and "The Door to Saturn", in which Eibon
> found a people who admired his station.

I don't remember that one very well.

The Hyperborean sorcerer, persecuted for his devotion to Tsathoggua, ends up traveling to Saturn with his rival persecutor, discovering a town of alien creatures who also worship Tsathoggua, and give him a more lofty station in their society. It doesn't end so badly for the religious rival either, who gets to wash his woes away with some Saturnian vintage. The ending feels hopelessly isolated from Earth, and humorously absurd, but it's more positive than his other Hyperborean stories, in which the protagonists are normally eaten!

Quote:

Not me. I was repulsed by the insidious infiltration of the protagonists' actual physical bodies by the plants.
Yech! :^)

Ha, maybe it's not such a happy fate, but at least the brothers enjoyed it!

Quote:

However, I did see the resolution of "The Last Hieroglyph" as somewhat positive--you know, where the very mediocre astrologer and his mangy dog are absorbed into eternity as glyphs in the book of fate, I suppose.

That's interesting. I always felt a strange peace with that ending, a sort of wondrous sense of finality, though it never occurred to me that it could be seen as positive. What about the story's ending can be considered positive to you?

Quote:

Good observation. Smith somehow maintains a moral and narrative distance between the narrative POV and the characters and the actions in the story. One comes away thinking that this may have been a cautionary tale (as in The Witchcraft of Ulua), but it was most certainly *not* a moral lecture. Take from it what you may.

Agreed. I never felt these were moralistic stories, smothering you with lessons about being a better person or a good citizen (I can't stand most popular movies these days because of their mostly sociological concerns). But they present certain human follies (the arrogance of Azederac, the reckless freedom of Ulua) and human virtues (the self-control of Sabmon) within a vast and impersonal setting full of impressive supernatural events, somewhat contrasting the petty human actions with the larger inhuman world. It gives the readers more of a high-flying bird's eye-view of what the characters are doing, and how their actions inevitably string them along to some unfortunate, though logical, fate.

Quote:

Hah, hah! I just remember a passage in Ulua that has stuck with me for years! It was not central to the story, but ancillary expository, telling about an ancient wizard who attained power "by putting down the insubordinations of the flesh".
For some reason this really appealed. I can sympathize with this a great deal, because I've been at constant war with fleshly impulses, really drifting over into a successful life by controlling, with significant struggle, momentary pleasures.

...to a degree... ;^)

As do I! It's funny what a little self-control can do for your health and happiness. Social media has a tendency to encourage people to act on emotional impulse, which, from what I've seen in both myself and others, will usually turn life into a meaningless mess of chaos, or waste away a potentially stable mind. Ulua chose to "live fast, die young".

Still, it's also a waste of natural instincts not to enjoy some impulse...

Quote:

The ending of The Weaver in the Vault--where the protagonists die in a subterranean earthquake, one after another--is one such, I think. Eerie but beautiful. Does this seem like a decent example of what you're describing?

Yes! "The Last Hieroglyph" left a similar impression on me.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 2 Oct 21 | 11:16AM by Hespire.

Quote:

Sawfish
However, I did see the resolution of "The Last Hieroglyph" as somewhat positive--you know, where the very mediocre astrologer and his mangy dog are absorbed into eternity as glyphs in the book of fate, I suppose.

Quote:

Hespire
That's interesting. I always felt a strange peace with that ending, a sort of wondrous sense of finality, though it never occurred to me that it could be seen as positive. What about the story's ending can be considered positive to you?

This is s great example of subjective perceptions, Hespire. "Strange peace", and "wondrous finality" seem very positive to me.

I mean, consider the alternatives... ;^)

--Sawfish

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

Good discussion. And I think it points the direction towards what the Eldritch Dark website is, and really should be about, and what Clark Ashton Smith is about. Getting back on track. That of a cosmically exploring perspective, that rises way beyond the limited viewpoint of placing Man and his morals at the center of Creation and the Universe. A cosmic perspective in which Man is merely an inconsequential detail, and not necessarily meant to last either, ... but perhaps be replaced by other life, or even be transformed into something else.

What is good and what is bad? To eat or be eaten? Where is the boundary to evil? In a mundane human cultural perspective morals and ethics are good and well, for a stable and comfortable society. But what relevance does it have in a higher cosmic perspective, or even beyond our puny human aquarium outlook? Does human suffering even matter? And in a longer perspective? What do we know of what lies in store, and of what is meant to be?

I don't believe the imagination can soar daringly if our thinking is shackled down and limited by conventional moralistic thinking.

So what is a clear objective perspective? Is it cosmic, or is it on a mundane humanistic level following the thread of our feet? Is compassion objective? Or merely stupidity (aside from the social benefits won)?

Knygatin, I'll be interested to see what others have to say in response to your eloquent invitation to discussion. I don't intend to say much, if anything, beyond what I say here, since I've done so elsewhere more than once.

You wrote, "I don't believe the imagination can soar daringly if our thinking is shackled down and limited by conventional moralistic thinking." But you seem to me to beg the question here.

1.Must moral thinking be "conventional"? Some of the world's great moral thinkers, such as Socrates, were socially "un-conventional" for all their moral focus. (And look where that got him with the citizens of Athens.)

2.Moreover, must "moral thinking" shackle and limit our thinking? I could list for you various scientists, artists, philosophers, statesmen, and so on who clearly placed a high value on moral thinking but were obviously outstanding thinkers. My favorite example is Blaise Pascal.

[en.wikipedia.org]

3.Must[i] moral thought have a deleterious effect on imagination? I think the idea that it must would be impossible to prove. Conversely, it would be easy to prove that moral thinking may be combined with very great imaginative powers. Take the art of Bosch, Bruegel, and Dürer for example, or George MacDonald's novel [i]Lilith, surely one of the great, sustained imaginative works of literature of all time.



Knygatin, you also wrote of a "cosmic perspective in which Man is merely an inconsequential detail." I have to question that word "inconsequential." It seems likely to me that it implies something about the infinitesimal tininess of human beings compared to the vast age and distances of the universe. But there is a problem with this idea (so beloved by H. G. Wells and H. P. Lovecraft). The problem is that it commits a basic category error. It's like comparing algebra and Chanel No. 5. The vast age of the universe=many years. The vast size of the universe=many miles. We are talking about quantity in both of these cases. But no one ever said that what makes human beings important, or of consequence, is how large they are or how long they live. If we did say that, then a 110-year-old man who is 6 feet 2 inches tall is "objectively," and for that reason, more "consequential" than a woman who is 24 years old and 5 feet 4 inches tall. But does anyone really want to spend time discussing that? We're confusing a matter of quantity and a matter of quality; this confusion is made possible because we use the same word, "consequence," for different things.

Or let me get at the fallacy in a different way. Let's suppose that all that exists is one star with one life-populated planet circling it. Would we be quick to say that this "earth" is "inconsequential"? Probably we would hesitate to do so! Okay, now let's suppose that this universe is big enough to contain two stars. The second star has no planets. Is the solar system with one planet now a bit less consequential? If you say Yes, I will ask why. Okay, now let's suppose that the universe contains one trillion stars. You think that now the solar system with the inhabited planets is less consequential? Then I will ask what was the magic threshold -- at what point did the star we started out with, with its planet, cease to be "consequential" and become somehow inconsequential. Was it when we went from having 99 stars to 100?

You see my point, I suppose. Whatever it is that would make the planet earth, its inhabitants, and its star "consequential," it must not be a matter of size (or age).

So, then, on what basis do we decide whether the earth & its inhabitants are consequential or inconsequential?

Well, I would say the mere fact that human beings can and do think about such things suggests that they are "consequential" -- whether they got this way through nothing but random evolution or through divine design or some other way.

Having said all that: I think you are getting at an important feeling, but it's one that is often "disguised" as a metaphysical outlook. Many people do feel a sense of awe if they contemplate the vastness of space. The most famous expression of that feeling was, in fact, written by Pascal: everyone has heard or read of his remark about how "the eternal silence of those infinite distances frightens me." "Le silence eternel des ces espaces infinis m'effraie." When I think of that remakr, it is impossible for me to believe that a concern with moral matters somehow adversely affects the imagination. Pascal was concerned with moral matters (hence his severe attack on the Jesuits), and at the same time was one of the great rhetoricians of the imagination.

Those silent, infinite spaces frighten him with an awe emerging from within himself. Presumably a duck happening to look up at the night sky feels no such awe -- though a duck is not a contemptible thing. But I'll turn to Pascal when I need my thoughts and imaginings refreshed.



Also: do you, Knygatin, and do you, Sawfish, think the CAS Protagonists thread is the right thread for this discussion?

Knygatin, I hope you will feel that my previous posting was written in good faith as a response to matters you yourself had just raised.

Perhaps much of what you wanted to say, though, was that you’d like more discussion here about imaginative writing in which moral conflicts is a minimal factor. Would I be right in saying you’re thinking of works such as Hodgson’s House on the Borderland and The Night Land, etc.?

If so, OK. But I wanted to argue that the presence of a moral element in a work of fantasy need not be deleterious to its interest and achievement. And I wanted to offer a critique of some passages in your message.

Perhaps my comment was too general to belong in this thread. But I tried to focus on the essence of the Eldritch Dark, Clark Ashton Smith, and his readers, and why the protagonists in his stories often end up the way they do. A longing for the weird, the cosmically exotic, looking beyond and freeing ourselves from the human aquarium.
I hear what you said Dale, I understand your Christian perspective, so you need not repeat it. It is the antithesis from what people on this site, readers of Clark Ashton smith, are really interested in.

Knygatin, my response to your metaphysical remarks was not written from an explicitly Christian perspective, and very little that I have written here at ED has been so written. I have been forthright about my beliefs so that anyone prepared to read them courteously would see that "my cards are on the table," and because I'm not ashamed of those beliefs. In my response posted yesterday, I invited you to evaluate the consistency and convincingness of your remarks about imagination as somehow opposed to moral thinking. I didn't oppose what you said on grounds you don't accept ("You can't mean this, because it conflicts with Christianity!!") but on our shared ground as reasonable people. You don't want to defend or to adjust what you wrote, so the matter can rest there.

I've been reading and thinking about weird fiction for over 50 years, and have published critical articles on Lovecraft in particular. I note that, from very early days at ED Forum, postings about authors other than Clark Ashton Smith have been made. There has been much discussion of Lovecraft, Derleth, Machen, and so on. You recently started a thread on Fritz Leiber. But the Forum introduction does indeed say that this forum is intended for the discussion of Smith, an author whom I have read but about whose work I'm indifferent.

I have been a participant here by the hospitality of the other participants.* Your most recent message on this thread implies an invitation to me to leave the Eldritch Dark Forum. I have long intended that, if anyone here asked me to leave, I would do so. Your posting comes close enough to doing that.

*I'm not sure, but it might have been J. D. Worthington who drew my attention to ED. Some ED folk will remember JD's erudite and (in former days) frequent postings.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 9 Oct 21 | 11:34AM by Dale Nelson.

I'm fine with discussing these topics here, on this thread.

My wife and I just got back from a nice Fall road trip in the Pacific Northwest. I've got a few loose ends to take care of for the next couple of days, but will return to this post.

Thanks for the invitation!

--Sawfish

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

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin, I hope you will feel that my previous
> posting was written in good faith as a response to
> matters you yourself had just raised.
>
> Perhaps much of what you wanted to say, though,
> was that you’d like more discussion here about
> imaginative writing in which moral conflicts is a
> minimal factor. Would I be right in saying
> you’re thinking of works such as Hodgson’s
> House on the Borderland and The Night Land, etc.?
>
> If so, OK. But I wanted to argue that the
> presence of a moral element in a work of fantasy
> need not be deleterious to its interest and
> achievement. And I wanted to offer a critique of
> some passages in your message.

FWIW, I have never felt that there have been *any* bad faith discussions on this forum. Sometimes we may get a little snippish, but often not even that.

So a good faith exchange among thoughtful participants who probably already know that they may disagree fundamentally over profoundly pivotal issues is very, very important and rewarding so far as I'm concerned. And this is why...

I have tested beliefs that I hold as "fact" (independently verifiable events/phenomena), but by no means am I certain. Thoughtful exchanges with others of good faith helps me to test these personal beliefs; I have often changed my personal worldview to accommodate new and compelling ideas and concepts, if they test out.

Last thing...

Many on web forums seek to either make a respondent look bad, or they seek to convert a respondent to their own viewpoint. I want no part of either, no matter how it may look to you. The former is petty, rude, and egotistical; the latter is none of my business--you have your life to live, and it's not mine.

--Sawfish

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

I might just as well spell this out...

I feel responsible for having steered discussions on ED to topics not covered in the forum's stated mission. I realize that this is directly contrary to my earlier stated preference against broadening discussions here.

I did this simply because the interlocutors are, above all, of good faith. They are basically honest and well-meaning. I don't know how many of you have posted into the openly political/philosophical/ideological forums, but if you have you'll recognize just how rare these qualities are.

So I have had a taste for explorative philosophical discussions, but ED is the only place I've consistently found respondents who'll do it honestly. Other places people want to attempt to publicly group you into pre-defined schools of thought (such as it is) and hence marginalize you. Very often I've found that this type of respondent--one you might have found on the old Atlantic comments section, or Mother Jones, gun rights forums, etc.--seem almost completely unable to conceive of an independently held worldview--one that is unaligned with popular political or ideological belief systems. That's *not* been the case here, and perhaps it's because we're all here because we have a taste for the divergent, and so can both understand it as a concept, and appreciate what doors it can open.

So me, I'd like to see continued open discussion here, not because it sticks to the forum's charter (it doesn't), but because the people attracted to this forum are compatible with the kinds of discussions I enjoy. We just have to trust each other's motiviations, and be sure to develop a kind of thickish skin...

So far as the forum's charter, I view it as having originally been handed down by a Supreme Being of some sort, but it appears that this god, too, is dead--or at least retired to the South of France. So, we're on our own...

So far as hewing closely to the charter, we've got to realize that CAS had a limited ouvre and we've beaten the living crap out of it for nearly 20 years--like dusting Auntie Ellen's 80 year old Persian rug, out back. Because there's like more new to discuss, we have a tendency to slide into hagiography--a point I noted pettishly a few years back.

So that's how I see it.

--Sawfish

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

I've become too busy with both family matters and other interests to post here as frequently as I used to, but every time I check in on this place I enjoy reading everyone's conversations. I have my own perspectives and beliefs which anyone here could disagree with (and plenty have), but this is one of the rare forums, especially related to fiction, that encourages friendly, enlightening, and respectful discussions, and on a diverse range of subjects, too. This is, in fact, the only forum I participate in anymore. Social media has soured me because too often I've encountered exactly what Sawfish described: people (mostly young, though immaturity knows no age) who can't possibly comprehend the existence of constructive conversations, or the joy of discourse, or the acceptance of a world that isn't glued together by one brand of morality.

I'm not religious like Dale, and I'm not irreligious like Sawfish, but I learn greatly from both, recognizing them as individuals of unique thoughts and qualities. Same as anyone else who's active or semi-active here, and I suppose that's because you're required to have a certain degree of open-mindedness and interesting thoughts in order to be a fan of CAS. And I always appreciated the fact that Dale regularly attends this place even though he isn't a fan of CAS. It's proof that individuals who don't share the same superficial interests can still share interesting ideas with each other, which I think is rarely acknowledged in the one-dimensional world of "fandoms". Thanks to Dale I've read literature I wouldn't have tried on my own; I'm simply too insecure to discuss them.

Well said, Hespire!!!

--Sawfish

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

I have during the last week tried to write a reply, but it gets too involved, and I therefore cannot post it. I suggest instead that the discussion about Smith's protagonists and cosmic perspective continues, and perhaps someone else meets Dale's argument above.

Knygatin Wrote:
---------------------------------------
> I hear what you said Dale, I understand your
> Christian perspective, so you need not repeat it.
> It is the antithesis from what people on this
> site, readers of Clark Ashton smith, are really
> interested in.

Kyngatin: That is an utterly ridiculous generalization. So, for the purpose of staying on point here (IOW, your comfort zone), I suppose we should consider that Smith's imagination, on a psychological level, rebelled against moral concerns and ethical thinking, like HPL's. How liberating! Perhaps his interest in questions of cosmological, biological, and anthropological origins (the three big bangs) did little to stir his amoral genius. Although, he did say he believed in the probability of a metaphysical basis for evil. Why, btw, should I care what "people on this site...are really interested in"? After all, I agree with Dale's points even though they were not Christocentric in substance. No less imaginative an author than Walter de la Mare would have instantly dismissed your inference that the imaginative faculties of humans in general and artists in particular gain intensity, by a process similar to osmosis, when divorced from any sense of human significance. No doubt that explains why Henry S. Whitehead's weird fiction isn't cosmic. Or is it?

jkh

I'd like to add that on top of CAS' interest (and supposed belief) in demons and a metaphysical basis for evil, he also seemed a bit moralistic when compared to H. P. Lovecraft, M. R. James, W. H. Hodgson, and other famous weird writers, in that his stories often reward arrogance, greed, and cruelty with unambiguously terrible fates. Just ask Avoosl, Ralibar, Nathaire, Namirha, etc. Not that his stories don't have that cosmic perspective I described earlier, and Sawfish made a good point that his tales are more cautionary than moralizing, but there's no denying that the fate of Avoosl was presented as justly deserved, whereas the people of Lovecraft's Sarnath only went extinct many ages after their ancestors' long-forgotten crime.

I do think some of CAS' fiction and poetry can feel tedious in their misanthropy, but he certainly wasn't disinterested in the human experience, given his many friendships, visits with fans, and a successful marriage. Not to mention his personal collection of books, which was mostly realistic, romantic, and non-fictional rather than weird or cosmic.

I might have rambled a bit, but my point is that CAS wasn't the detached and isolated alien he might have presented himself as, and plenty of unique literature is derived from the mundane world of human interests, including weird literature, such as Whitehead's realistic Voodoo stuff and the highly romantic King in Yellow. Right now I'm reading Haruki Murakami's Norweigian Wood, a novel that offers many imaginative thoughts while exploring political, dramatic, and psychological interests.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 20 Oct 21 | 12:43AM by Hespire.

Quote:

Hespire
Right now I'm reading Haruki Murakami's Norweigian Wood, a novel that offers many imaginative thoughts while exploring political, dramatic, and psychological interests.

Regrettably, I'm going to diverge here a bit. If anyone wants further discussion on this point of departure, I'm certainly willing to transfer it to another OT thread. Or stay here; it doesn't matter to me.

I've read some Murakami a few years ago. What little I can remember is that he injects his own ideas about the motivations for various events in his narrative, bringing what I see as useful insights into the human condition--how/why people act as they do in varied circumstances.

And he seems to bridge the differences between Japanese and mainstream western thought on occasion, bringing yet further food for thought.

So his stories are vehicles for an intelligent observer of human nature to make sense of events. In this way they are potentially instructive--presenting the reader with new ideas to consider and to accept or reject--rather than simply entertaining.

It struck me that two modern western writers, Michel Houellebeq and Hunter S. Thompson, do the same. Both see the world as highly irrational and at present socially diseased. In Houellebeq's case, he sits above it, to give himself a refuge--it's irony.

Thompson was I believe, a deeply idealistic person driven to excesses, knowingly as a mode of escape from the same basic reality that Houellebeq sees. Instead of irony, it's excess.

Two individualistic thinkers seeing the same things, but finding different ways to attempt to live with them.

--Sawfish

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