I'm confident that Lovecraft wanted to belittle humanity. (He would have said, "Specifically, I want to show that humanity is very little indeed over against a vast universe that knows nothing of humanity's wishes hopes morals dreams achievements.") He did, in a way, balance that with a desire to exalt a version of traditional British culture -- one from which the (historically huge) element of Christianity was absent; his notion of a dignified, learned Anglo-Saxon gentleman standing above the brood of vulgar mongrels. But this element in his outlook was not (as I recall) prominent in his major fiction, where the belittling agenda was overt or implied.

But someone here might qualify these sentences on HPL. And what about the other two? Did they have this belittlement agenda, and how and why did they express it?

Perhaps this would be worth discussing.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm confident that Lovecraft wanted to belittle
> humanity. (He would have said, "Specifically, I
> want to show that humanity is very little indeed
> over against a vast universe that knows nothing of
> humanity's wishes hopes morals dreams
> achievements.") He did, in a way, balance that
> with a desire to exalt a version of traditional
> British culture -- one from which the
> (historically huge) element of Christianity was
> absent; his notion of a dignified, learned
> Anglo-Saxon gentleman standing above the brood of
> vulgar mongrels. But this element in his outlook
> was not (as I recall) prominent in his major
> fiction, where the belittling agenda was overt or
> implied.
>
> But someone here might qualify these sentences on
> HPL. And what about the other two? Did they have
> this belittlement agenda, and how and why did they
> express it?
>
> Perhaps this would be worth discussing.

Let's see...

To try to engage on this topic, I'd like to think that HPL's version of evil was "cosmic evil". This is outside of any normal theology. It exists before humanity, and it is evil because from humanity's POV, humanity is not recognized by this evil as anything other than insignificant chattel...at best. Ot simple vermin to torment, like a kid with a magnifying glass at an anthill.

CAS's evil seemed based on human shortcomings: hubris, greed, lust, cowardice, etc. Every now and then you get a direct impingement by a non-human, like in The Weird of Avoosl Wuthoqquan, where greed is used to trap provender. And even in The Dark Eidolon the involved god, Thasaidon, is motivated by a sort of revenge for Namirrah acting like a big shot. Thasaidon acts like an offended human tyrant might.

So CAS's evil is usually a lot like bad Greek gods, at the most. Simply superhumans.

I'd say that HPL belittled humanity from "above", from the implied perspective of the unfathomable cosmos peopled by superior and completely alien beings, as he construes it. CAS sort of mocks human nature, rather than truly belittles humanity.

Certainly I can be convinced otherwise.

--Sawfish

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

That's the sort of discussion I hoped this thread might attract, Sawfish. I thought Kipling's postings on August 7 invited wide-ranging and interesting discussion about these three authors, and the "belittlement" idea might indeed be a way to get at their differences. I haven't read a lot of CAS, though, and of what I have read, a fair bit was quite a while ago, so I don't have much to contribute, myself. But what you wrote sounds spot-on to me.

Now a related question might be -- what is the attitude(s) one typically sees in each author's "belittling" stories? With Lovecraft, it seems to me, the agenda of evoking literary (not literal) supernatural terror/horror is emphasized. Lovecraft maybe balances two things as he writes his stories. On the one hand he wants to evoke the cosmic evil you have identified, which makes humankind "small" in his view, and on the other hand he wants the reader to "sympathize" with (often) a first-person narrator who gets into a nasty predicament, or with at least an obvious protagonist (in At the Mountains of Madness the members of the exploring group together are "the protagonist"). Otherwise, he'd likely figure, the reader would feel less horror/terror.

But with Smith, it seems to me that in some of his stories at least there's a kind of sardonic glee, as if the reader is invited to enjoy the spectacle of the appalling fates meted out to the victims.

There's a satirical glee in Swift, but I don't think I'd say it is sardonic.

I completely agree with you that HPL's belittling of humanity was at the core of his cosmic horror. I also appreciate the differentiation that was made between the ways in which HPL belittled humankind, and how CAS illustrated our place in the cosmos. However, I don't feel that Robert E Howard did this as often, or that was central to his work. Conan, Solomon Kane and other human heroes in Howard's writings face evil forces from beyond head on and would usually triumph. His tale: The Thing On The Roof in particular comes to mind, when an everyman meets a Lovecraftian evil but summons the courage to destroy it. Overall his work was about the strength of humankind when facing larger and more powerful cosmic forces. I know I've read his horror tales that end in doom, but I still feel that his theme of the strength of man and woman is more central to his work.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's the sort of discussion I hoped this thread
> might attract, Sawfish. I thought Kipling's
> postings on August 7 invited wide-ranging and
> interesting discussion about these three authors,
> and the "belittlement" idea might indeed be a way
> to get at their differences. I haven't read a lot
> of CAS, though, and of what I have read, a fair
> bit was quite a while ago, so I don't have much to
> contribute, myself. But what you wrote sounds
> spot-on to me.
>
> Now a related question might be -- what is the
> attitude(s) one typically sees in each author's
> "belittling" stories? With Lovecraft, it seems to
> me, the agenda of evoking literary (not literal)
> supernatural terror/horror is emphasized.
> Lovecraft maybe balances two things as he writes
> his stories. On the one hand he wants to evoke
> the cosmic evil you have identified, which makes
> humankind "small" in his view,

Yes.

> and on the other
> hand he wants the reader to "sympathize" with
> (often) a first-person narrator who gets into a
> nasty predicament, or with at least an obvious
> protagonist (in At the Mountains of Madness the
> members of the exploring group together are "the
> protagonist"). Otherwise, he'd likely figure, the
> reader would feel less horror/terror.

Yes, and this is pure pencraft, admirable. I know that you full well understand the
nuances of the art, Dale, from my past experiences.

Maybe it's of significance that his "protagonists" are not sympathetic--it's difficult to attach to them as admirable individuals--but they are *human* and usually well-educated, so there is that commonality with the readers.

>
> But with Smith, it seems to me that in some of his
> stories at least there's a kind of sardonic glee,
> as if the reader is invited to enjoy the spectacle
> of the appalling fates meted out to the victims.

Yes, indeed, and for certain kinds of readers, whom I'll leave unidentified, it's the hot sauce on the enchilada... :^)
>
>
> There's a satirical glee in Swift, but I don't
> think I'd say it is sardonic.

Trying hard to remember, it seemed humorous, but less nuanced with gleeful irony than CAS.

CAS could sometimes come off as very worldly--the authorial voice (if i'm using this correctly) behind the POV. He can actually sense the attractions of succubi, I get the feeling...

Try The Witchcraft of Ulloa, or something like that. I enjoyed it as a sort of worldly morality tale. People very often get their comeuppance in his stories, all right. But sometimes it's devoid of this sort of conventional morality, too, which is refreshing.

--Sawfish

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

Sawfish, a quick comment on your remark about Lovecraft's protagonists, that they "are not sympathetic--it's difficult to attach to them as admirable individuals--but they are *human* and usually well-educated, so there is that commonality with the readers."

But my memory is that quite a few of the protagonists are, at first, attractive figures to identify with: well-educated, as you say, and of comfortable means, probably respected by their peers, with curiosity that we find appealing (i.e. it's not mostly a matter of personal ambition to become famous that moves them to their explorations).I think the protagonists are an important factor in the way that, for readers, Lovecraft's world is a comfortable one.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish, a quick comment on your remark about
> Lovecraft's protagonists, that they "are not
> sympathetic--it's difficult to attach to them as
> admirable individuals--but they are *human* and
> usually well-educated, so there is that
> commonality with the readers."
>
> But my memory is that quite a few of the
> protagonists are, at first, attractive figures to
> identify with: well-educated, as you say, and of
> comfortable means, probably respected by their
> peers, with curiosity that we find appealing (i.e.
> it's not mostly a matter of personal ambition to
> become famous that moves them to their
> explorations).I think the protagonists are an
> important factor in the way that, for readers,
> Lovecraft's world is a comfortable one.

It is a comfortable one and I wholeheartedly agree with that observation you developed in the past. It is comfortable in the same sense that Doyle's Holmes series is. Would you agree?

To me, the characters seem--owing to their education and comfortable means--above all *complacent*. This of course sorta unappealing--I believe that the current Gen Z would use the term "privileged" and it carries a certain negativity even to me, who has made it his life's work to amass whatever concrete assets of value that I could for the benefit of my bloodline.

So that when they get utterly gobsmacked by the cosmos, as in that one where a smart-alec goes into a tomb with a telephone (calls out to the POV) so as to prove he was right about something, and down there apparently goes thru many changes of the sort best left unsaid.

Fun discussion.

--Sawfish

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

Sawfish asks, "It is comfortable in the same sense that Doyle's Holmes series is. Would you agree?"

Pretty much, yes -- and the test goes like this: Suppose I were out in a cabin in the woods and found myself to be in the mood for a Lovecraft story, but none were to be had. On the little shelf, though, I saw some books including The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. Sure -- that would do.

Holmes, like some of those Lovecraft scholar-protagonists, doesn't have to worry about meals, or the obligations of marriage and family, etc. He lives largely to exercise his abilities and to satisfy his curiosity, like some of them.

I have the impression that a number of fan writers have written "Lovecraftian" stories with Sherlock Holmes as a character.

But Holmes is never overwhelmed at the end by some ghastly fate. He always does more than escape by the skin of his teeth. I like it, though, that early on at least Doyle had Holmes fail to pull off a complete victory. He was outwitted by Irene Adler ("A Scandal in Bohemia") and was a day late and a dollar short in connection with a forgery gang ("The Engineer's Thumb").

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish asks, "It is comfortable in the same sense
> that Doyle's Holmes series is. Would you agree?"
>
> Pretty much, yes -- and the test goes like this:
> Suppose I were out in a cabin in the woods and
> found myself to be in the mood for a Lovecraft
> story, but none were to be had. On the little
> shelf, though, I saw some books including The
> Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. Sure -- that would
> do.
>
> Holmes, like some of those Lovecraft
> scholar-protagonists, doesn't have to worry about
> meals, or the obligations of marriage and family,
> etc. He lives largely to exercise his abilities
> and to satisfy his curiosity, like some of them.
>
> I have the impression that a number of fan writers
> have written "Lovecraftian" stories with Sherlock
> Holmes as a character.
>
> But Holmes is never overwhelmed at the end by some
> ghastly fate. He always does more than escape by
> the skin of his teeth. I like it, though, that
> early on at least Doyle had Holmes fail to pull
> off a complete victory. He was outwitted by Irene
> Adler ("A Scandal in Bohemia") and was a day late
> and a dollar short in connection with a forgery
> gang ("The Engineer's Thumb").

Here's a thought...

Following up on the idea of creating a "comfortable story"--and I'm not even sure that what we're talking about is truly a discrete element of the stylistic toolkit, like setting, tone, voice--Dunsany's "The Jorkens Stories" also shares this characteristic we're talking about. There's no wife or domestic duties, there are stable and somewhat enriched surroundings (a British gentleman's club of lesser status), and the form is that one of the members--the vaguely disreputable Jorkins--conveys humorous and fantastic recollections as a means to obtain a free drink.

--Sawfish

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

Sawfish, I haven't read more than maybe two or three of these and none recently, but it sounds like there's a kinship. Lovecraft didn't use the social setting, so far as I remember, except maybe in "Pickman's Model" (not one of his better stories), right? In that one, as I recall, a rather keyed-up narrator is holding his captive audience Eliot or Elliott (I forget the spelling) and telling the story. They both knew the artist Pickman, right? I don't remember if it is specified, how they became acquainted, but a club setting would make sense. Perhaps the next sentence after the end of the story as Lovecraft wrote it was a reply: "Well, if what you're saying is true, there's no question but that Pickman will have to be blackballed!"

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish, I haven't read more than maybe two or
> three of these and none recently, but it sounds
> like there's a kinship. Lovecraft didn't use the
> social setting, so far as I remember, except maybe
> in "Pickman's Model" (not one of his better
> stories), right? In that one, as I recall, a
> rather keyed-up narrator is holding his captive
> audience Eliot or Elliott (I forget the spelling)
> and telling the story. They both knew the artist
> Pickman, right? I don't remember if it is
> specified, how they became acquainted, but a club
> setting would make sense. Perhaps the next
> sentence after the end of the story as Lovecraft
> wrote it was a reply: "Well, if what you're saying
> is true, there's no question but that Pickman will
> have to be blackballed!"

Hah! Canceled, huh? ;^)

Seriously, I cannot recall the story in detail well enough to comment intelligently, so...

I know you've done some thinking on the "comfortable narratives" topic (which I thought about quite a bit, tested to my satisfaction, and unreservedly agreed with), and you may have categorized it attributes, but if not it would be interesting to compile an organized list, maybe.

What attributes are absolutely essential?

What lesser attributes contribute to narratives we classify as "comfortable"?

E.g., a club is not essential, as the HPL stories demonstrate, but it can cumulatively add to the feeling. In Holmes it's their apartment; maybe smoking and violin-playing. In something as superficially unlikely as Mountains of Madness, it is that the expedition is a superbly well-funded college research expedition.

The whole idea is, to me, very interesting.

Also, this comfortable feeling, to what part of the stylistic vocabulary (mood, setting, characterization, theme, etc.) does it relate? Is it wholly within a single stylistic element, is it an oddball hybrid, or is it something else?

There is, however, none of this in CAS that I can recall.

--Sawfish

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 19 Aug 23 | 11:34AM by Sawfish.

Sawfish, I haven't read CAS lately, but I don't remember the "comfortable" elements as typical of his writing. This might mean that Lovecraft was more susceptible to influence from Doyle and other authors who used that approach.

Lovecraft used it less when he was writing in the manner of Poe. I see Lovecraft as writing Poe- or Dunsany-type stories early on (and the Dunsany stories being the dream-stories or myth pantheon-stories, not Jorkens), but later writing stories with more of an element of quasi-detection and/or adventure. Can ED folk verify that impression?

I wrote "comfortable elements," plural.

There's the comfortableness experienced by the reader. The reader (1) identifies with characters in comfortable circumstances and (2) reads a story of events and entities too bizarre and extreme to be really unsettling to him. Agreed? A test of this is the type of appreciation that the reader feels, for example, when he reads the description of Wilbur Whateley in "The Dunwich Horror." I think Lovecraft wanted the reader to feel horrified and even nauseated, but the Lovecraft fan more likely, if he accurately reported what he felt, would say, "Cool!" It's like the kid I knew when I taught high school who drew the creature from the then-new Alien movie. The creature is cool!

There's the comfortableness of characters in the story, who are in easy circumstances (like the guy in "The Call of Cthulhu" who could just take off on a 'round-the-world trip to satisfy his curiosity -- where does his money come from? Answer: he just has it). They have no families or others to whom they feel obligations, or at least that seems often to be the case. They enjoy what (I believe) Lovecraft yearned for: not vast wealth, but INDEPENDENCE. They can buy the books they want, travel as they want, enjoy a household in a nice and quiet neighborhood, and so on. I think the love of independence was one of the defining characteristics of Lovecraft's personality (and that it has a lot to do with his militant atheism). He imparts the independence he didn't fully enjoy to such characters, who don't have to work for a living or, if they are employees, it;s probably something like a well-endowed university's faculty position.

Sherlock Holmes likewise doesn't have to worry about money. Like Lovecraft's characters, he doesn't worry about meals, but they are there when they are wanted, it seems. Am I remembering fairly well?

So I see this comfort-business, Sawfish, primarily as a matter of circumstances in the story rather than style. It is largely implied rather than being lavishly described.

Just to add to that, Dale, what you've described relates to Robert E. Howard's concern with historical adventure fiction, and Lovecraft's concept of BACKGROUND as an essential, and we might say comfortable element. Smith's fiction is in contrast. We are thrown headlong into his narratives more often than not.

jkh

Kipling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just to add to that, Dale, what you've described
> relates to Robert E. Howard's concern with
> historical adventure fiction, and Lovecraft's
> concept of BACKGROUND as an essential, and we
> might say comfortable element. Smith's fiction is
> in contrast. We are thrown headlong into his
> narratives more often than not.


I agree, about CAS, Kipling, and diverging somewhat here, it dawned on me this morning that very often in CAS stories, the terrible events described happen to a character who, in some sense, deserves it.

This is seldom, if ever, the case with HPL. It is a blind collision with circumstance. The character might "deserve" it, or not, but this is unimportant.

--Sawfish

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

Quote:

Dale:
There's the comfortableness experienced by the reader. The reader (1) identifies with characters in comfortable circumstances and (2) reads a story of events and entities too bizarre and extreme to be really unsettling to him. Agreed?

Now that you bring this up, I don't think that such stories are unsettling as, for example, McCarthy's The Road. Very often I am far, far above the action--a 40k foot view. Godlike, I suppose. This goes for such tales as Dreams in the Witch House. The ones I've connected to the character--the object of the terror--enough to be a bit effected --are things like The Outsider (dead person comes to life with incomplete memory and attempts to interact with living humans, not realizing he is not like them, but dead) and Nyarlahotep--which is basically an apocalyptic nightmare, with no possible escape.

Quote:

Dale:
A test of this is the type of appreciation that the reader feels, for example, when he reads the description of Wilbur Whateley in "The Dunwich Horror." I think Lovecraft wanted the reader to feel horrified and even nauseated, but the Lovecraft fan more likely, if he accurately reported what he felt, would say, "Cool!" It's like the kid I knew when I taught high school who drew the creature from the then-new Alien movie. The creature is cool!

I seldom react that way. Maybe the Call of Cthulu ("flabby claws"!!!--wow, this is a purposeful and masterly non-sequitur that highlights alienness). All those implied non-Euclidian angles....

Quote:

Dale:
There's the comfortableness of characters in the story, who are in easy circumstances (like the guy in "The Call of Cthulhu" who could just take off on a 'round-the-world trip to satisfy his curiosity -- where does his money come from? Answer: he just has it).

Yes.

Quote:

Dale:
They have no families or others to whom they feel obligations, or at least that seems often to be the case.

Yes.

Quote:

Dale:
They enjoy what (I believe) Lovecraft yearned for: not vast wealth, but INDEPENDENCE. They can buy the books they want, travel as they want, enjoy a household in a nice and quiet neighborhood, and so on. I think the love of independence was one of the defining characteristics of Lovecraft's personality (and that it has a lot to do with his militant atheism). He imparts the independence he didn't fully enjoy to such characters, who don't have to work for a living or, if they are employees, it;s probably something like a well-endowed university's faculty position.

Seems to me it's likely that he felt this way.

Quote:

Dale:
Sherlock Holmes likewise doesn't have to worry about money. Like Lovecraft's characters, he doesn't worry about meals, but they are there when they are wanted, it seems. Am I remembering fairly well?

I don't recall. I *do* recall the comfortable feeling in Holmes when the story would start in their shared apartment, furnished in the style of an eccentric bachelor, and the housekeeper/landlady was bringing them something to eat or drink.

Quote:

Dale:
So I see this comfort-business, Sawfish, primarily as a matter of circumstances in the story rather than style. It is largely implied rather than being lavishly described.

If so, I'd see it as an aspect of setting. Sound about right?

--Sawfish

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 20 Aug 23 | 10:07AM by Sawfish.

HPL was somewhat attracted to 18th century / 19th century rationalistic positivism, but was not Christian enough to modify that with a dose of Christian humility. At the same time he was attracted to the supernatural through his love of ghost stories and horror stories. He sensed that his love of the supernatural was in some sense in conflict with rationalist pride and positivist ambitions. At the same thing, he sensed that rationalistic pride and postivist ambitions were in conflict with modern science when viewed though an atheist/materialist lens.

He called this cosmic horror -- this realization of the rationalist/positivist that some of his pride was misplaced. But I don't think any devout Christian would have had any problem with the idea that humanity is very little in the ultimate scheme of thingts.

Sawfish Wrote:


> If so, I'd see it as an aspect of setting. Sound
> about right?


Yep! What you have is a scenario in which (to begin with) the characters in their settings -- the scholarly, independent bachelor gentlemen -- are in harmony. Lovecraft then destroys this harmony by intruding his cosmic entities. However, this doesn't threaten the reader, for whom those entities are really extravagant. And in fact, for many readers, they're rather cool. Hence the fun fan artists have had with them.

Platypus, would you develop this thought a bit? "he [Lovecraft] sensed that rationalistic pride and positivist ambitions were in conflict with modern science"?

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Platypus, would you develop this thought a bit?
> "he sensed that rationalistic pride and
> positivist ambitions were in conflict with modern
> science"?


Specifically "rationistic pride" and "positivist ambitions". I'm uncertain what these terms mean.

--Sawfish

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

I wrote something awkwardly -- I wrote

" a scenario in which (to begin with) the characters in their settings -- the scholarly, independent bachelor gentlemen -- are in harmony"

What I meant was that in a given story like this, the scholarly, independent bachelor gentleman is in harmony with his pleasant setting, whether or a university campus or his private residence, etc.; and that Lovecraft, as I remember the stories, seems to have setups like this in several stories.

And then he works it so that characters like these are in settings and situations with which they are very much not in harmony.

M. R. James does this initial setting-thing even more than Lovecraft, and I am certain that this is an important part of the appeal of his stories. MRJ's characters usually survive their encounters with the "disharmonious" entities, their sanity is usually intact, and no threat to the survival of the human race is expected -- since MRJ doesn't deal in "cosmic horror," at least not anything like so overtly as HPL does.

REH never writes stories with scenarios like this, does he? -- scholarly gentlemen, comfortable surroundings, etc.?

How about CAS?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 20 Aug 23 | 08:00PM by Dale Nelson.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wrote something awkwardly -- I wrote
>
> " a scenario in which (to begin with) the
> characters in their settings -- the scholarly,
> independent bachelor gentlemen -- are in harmony"
>
> What I meant was that in a given story like this,
> the scholarly, independent bachelor gentleman is
> in harmony with his pleasant setting, whether or a
> university campus or his private residence, etc.;
> and that Lovecraft, as I remember the stories,
> seems to have setups like this in several
> stories.

I agree and I'd go so far as to say that when HPL brings in reference to Miskatonic U, he is in fact bringing the profound reassurance that scholarly (maybe independent) gentlemen, in harmony, are working on Problem A. And this is both reassuring and carries with it University conference rooms in ivy covered buildings, such as the room at Vassar where the senior honors were awarded to my daughter's volleyball team.

Medium sized trunion windows, fireplace and bookshelves.

How much more comfortable, in a strongly traditionalist way, does it get? ;^)


>
> And then he works it so that characters like these
> are in settings and situations with which they are
> very much not in harmony.

With the situation as it develops, or with each other?

>
> M. R. James does this initial setting-thing even
> more than Lovecraft, and I am certain that this is
> an important part of the appeal of his stories.
> MRJ's characters usually survive their encounters
> with the "disharmonious" entities, their sanity is
> usually intact, and no threat to the survival of
> the human race is expected -- since MRJ doesn't
> deal in "cosmic horror," at least not anything
> like so overtly as HPL does.

Yes.

Sorry to say this, but while I *like* individual James stories, they can be overwhelmingly similar, stultifyingly so.

Now, the *idea* of sitting by a fire on a stormy night and reading James is very much the "comfortable" image we're talking about, in some degree.

>
> REH never writes stories with scenarios like this,
> does he? -- scholarly gentlemen, comfortable
> surroundings, etc.?

Not that I'm aware of but I'm not the reader to ask. I have worked at trying to appreciate him--and I'll admit that he has established a certain niche, but it's not one I enjoy.

>
> How about CAS?

I don't see that he does this.

--Sawfish

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

As far as I remember, CAS' stories never have a comfort-setting. Many of his tales take place in alien worlds or fantastic landscapes, with the aim of making the reader feel dazzled, awed, or frightened.

When he does write stories that take place (or begin) in modern earthly society, his protagonists are usually outsiders, outcasts, eccentrics, self-exiles, explorers, or just very practical men who live in the remote countryside. All of this, of course, expresses some part of him which didn't like proper modern society.

Of the three writers listed in this thread's title, I dare say CAS was the closest to a misanthrope.

The only modern, earthly comfort I can remember in CAS' tales are the loving kisses of beautiful young women, but even these can be twisted into something weird, sometimes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 21 Aug 23 | 12:34AM by Hespire.

Hespire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As far as I remember, CAS' stories never have a
> comfort-setting. Many of his tales take place in
> alien worlds or fantastic landscapes, with the aim
> of making the reader feel dazzled, awed, or
> frightened.
>
> When he does write stories that take place (or
> begin) in modern earthly society, his protagonists
> are usually outsiders, outcasts, eccentrics,
> self-exiles, explorers, or just very practical men
> who live in the remote countryside. All of this,
> of course, expresses some part of him which didn't
> like proper modern society.
>
> Of the three writers listed in this thread's
> title, I dare say CAS was the closest to a
> misanthrope.
>
> The only modern, earthly comfort I can remember in
> CAS' tales are the loving kisses of beautiful
> young women, but even these can be twisted into
> something weird, sometimes.


I don't think he and Robert E. Howard were essentially anti-social so much as antagonistic; I think they cherished a disliking for people who regarded them as strange and eccentric. Their works are stylisically bolder than Lovecraft's, and probably attracted more criticism. Robert Bloch openly panned Howard's Conan tales in the Weird Tales letter column, and there was a running feud in a column of one of the sci-fi pulps, started by Forrest J. Ackerman's criticisms of Smith. Although, to your point, Hespire, some of his criticism was over Smith's cavalier misanthropy. But I think the more overt belittling of mankind in Smith is in the same vein we can find in Poe and Theophile Gautier, two of his favorite writers. Humans are insignificant dolts who degrade the beautiful and the imaginative. Gautier's famous tale "One of Cleopatra's Nights" begins with a description of the queen's barge on the Nile, described almost sensuously, like the clothes she wears (Lafcadio Hearn's short novel "Chita" has a similar opening passage describing the winding Mississippi bayou country). There is less characterization by design because Smith believed that too much characterization weakens the effect of terror. He referred to Blackwood and Walter de la Mare as exemplifying this drawback. Arthur Machen articulated the aesthetics of fantasy in brief by calling "Character-drawing" 'the great vice of literature'" in his 1890s notebook. So I think Smith was no more misanthropic than Howard or HPL, but all three derided the shallowness of the average American. -- "Nothing is less poetic than the life of the average American"-- Alexis de Tocqueville

jkh

DN: > And then he works it so that characters like these
> are in settings and situations with which they are
> very much not in harmony.

Sawfish: With the situation as it develops, or with each other?

The situation... probably they characters are pretty well isolated by then!

I'll probably be away a bit from ED for a while, though this is a good discussion.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DN: > And then he works it so that characters like
> these
> > are in settings and situations with which they
> are
> > very much not in harmony.
Harmoniousness is incompatible with serious horror fiction. Smith handles his situations vis-a-vis his characters more skillfully than Lovecraft, with the exception of "The Shadow Out of Time". Robert E. Howard and Henry S. Whitehead, at their best, also were better than Lovecraft in this regard. Howard's more ambitious tales were not successful (they are collected in The Sword Woman and other Historical Advetures). The difference between these 4 authors is in the superior prose styles of Lovecraft and Smith, and in Smith's more wide-ranging imagination.

jkh

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Platypus, would you develop this thought a bit?
> "he sensed that rationalistic pride and
> positivist ambitions were in conflict with modern
> science"?

Merely that reason, rationalism and positivism are wonderful things that are responsible for much of what Western Civilization has achieved. But, in the final analysis, men are not gods. Our capacity for reason, both individually and collectively, is finite. The promises of the age of reason, to the extent that people hoped too much from them (and many did) led to a backlash of nihilism and postmodernism.

I think HPL both mourned and welcomed the collapse of the age of reason and the realization of the puniness of man. This was tied to an aesthetic feeling, that was in some way akin to a religious feeling. Philosophically, HPL was not religious, so he saw it as aesthetic, and it prompted him to write supernatural horror with "cosmic" themes.

It's interesting, Kipling, to imply -- as I think you do -- that Lovecraft is, implictly, a critic of the WEIRD mindset:

Western
Educated
Industrialized
Rich
Democratic

[news.harvard.edu]

But Lovecraft's also an adherent of some of these elements. He probably knew and cared more about Classical history than the great majority of his readers. Anyway, possibly there's something worth discussing as regards Lovecraft and maybe the other Weird Tales writers, and the WEIRD.

Quote:

Platypus
The promises of the age
> of reason, to the extent that people hoped too
> much from them (and many did) led to a backlash of
> nihilism and postmodernism.

This implies something significant, I think...

When reason replaced God in the age of enlightenment, all that really happened was that the enlightened thinkers of the era switched out "God" and swapped in "(mankind's) Reason". They replaced God with their ideal selves. We didn't need any pronouncements from a deity, we could figure *all* of it our, ourselves. Therefore, anything was possible. Mankind was limitless in its potential attainments.

Like anything new, it had a period of energy and excited speculation, but after a while people of all sorts recognized that all was not indeed possible, as it had been when there was still a God, who, if you believed, could do *anything*. In fact, the further along the road to rationalism, as it is influenced by scientific discovery, the more insignificant mankind becomes.

Now, roll in a couple of world wars, which due to the numbers of participants involved, and the increased ability to report the events to the broad public, and you have the rise of nihilism and post-modernism.

Which appears to me to be right where we are now.

HPL as a front edge post-modernist...

--Sawfish

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

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HPL was somewhat attracted to 18th century / 19th
> century rationalistic positivism, but was not
> Christian enough to modify that with a dose of
> Christian humility. At the same time he was
> attracted to the supernatural through his love of
> ghost stories and horror stories. He sensed that
> his love of the supernatural was in some sense in
> conflict with rationalist pride and positivist
> ambitions. At the same thing, he sensed that
> rationalistic pride and postivist ambitions were
> in conflict with modern science when viewed though
> an atheist/materialist lens.


Lovecraft is regarded by the kind of people who write academic articles and news media pieces as terribly different from Us, what with his various attitudes.

In fact he and they are in fundamental agreement. They're both sterling examples of the characteristic modern person, Psychological Man, in Philip Rieff's view -- man who wants nothing more than to be pleased as an individual. Rieff wrote The Triumph of the Therapeutic, 1967. Lovecraft and the academics and journos stand together over against Rieff's Religious Man, who (as an admirer of Rieff summarized it) "looks to sources of meaning and conduct outside of himself, whether a religion or some other transcendent code."

Lovecraft is regarded by many as a conservative. In some sense, he was, and yet fundamentally he was about as conservative as the Bay Area paraders who wear leather underwear and dog masks. They are in agreement that one doesn't just "discover who one is" (the Sixties formulation) but one "creates" who or what one is: whether an 18th-century Gentleman born out of time, or something superficially very different.

Alex Braun Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I completely agree with you that HPL's belittling
> of humanity was at the core of his cosmic horror.
> I also appreciate the differentiation that was
> made between the ways in which HPL belittled
> humankind, and how CAS illustrated our place in
> the cosmos. However, I don't feel that Robert E
> Howard did this as often, or that was central to
> his work. Conan, Solomon Kane and other human
> heroes in Howard's writings face evil forces from
> beyond head on and would usually triumph. His
> tale: The Thing On The Roof in particular comes to
> mind, when an everyman meets a Lovecraftian evil
> but summons the courage to destroy it. Overall his
> work was about the strength of humankind when
> facing larger and more powerful cosmic forces. I
> know I've read his horror tales that end in doom,
> but I still feel that his theme of the strength of
> man and woman is more central to his work.
Yes, but you are talking about what Roland Barthes, the well-,known Structuralist critic, calls the "action code", only one of several codes that together create the meaning of a text. Howard's heroic characters are, in the authorial view, ultimately futile because they don't fit in a world destined to sink into the depravity of the buffered self. Now, in referencing Taylor's concept of buffered vrs porous selves discussed at great length on another thread, I beg your forbearance, but I think we should weave these two threads together before leaving them aside. We have safely assumed that Smith, Lovecraft and Howard shared the objective of belittling humanity, which you have disputed with regard to REH (more on that later). Their shared perspective of humanity might be called the Outsider's perspective, and it tends to brand these three authors as being nay-saying porous Selves. I think this has contributed to their lasting popularity as well, and I definitely think each of them was really what Taylor defined as the porous self. Dale recently disagrees completely with regard to Lovecraft, by the way. Nevertheless, HPL was too conscious of his cultural and aesthetic traditions to see his own mannerisms as anyhing more than a pose. The same goes for the other two, obviously much more than countless others who wrote for the pulps before fading into relative obscurity. And in their letters we see the relationship between their common sense rejection of humanity in the abstract and the estrangement of the humanistic concerns of realism which their work demanded. Robert E. Howard was if anything even more concerned with belittling humanity than Lovecraft and Smith, if you separate what I've referred to as the action code from the overt criticisms of humanity sprinkled throughout the stories you're referencing, and others.
To support this, consider "The Valley of the Worm", which title alone is emblematic of his main theme of the futility of human existence, as opposed to your idea of good triumphing over evil. In short, Howard's cynicism limits our sympathy for his characters, heroic or otherwise, which is where I see his close affinity with Clark Ashton Smith. The tale is presented as the ancestral memories of James Allison, a modern and transparently buffered self, but Howard practically soliloquizes on Allison's memories of all his past lives as paralleling the inevitable decline and failure of the entire human race. Niord is the name of the mighty warrior-savage whose slaying of a ghoulish, colossal monster is related in purple prose, and who dies of his wounds as Allison's ancestral memory fades out, leaving him in the present day world. Niord's strength and Allison's weakness are in stark contrast, yet, as Howard writes, "His blood is your blood." The descent from an age of Aryan heroism to civilized mediocrity and final weakness and decay is the story of humanity itself. Howard describes the Picts who were slaughtered by the monster as "indisputably white men", and the monster is "white and pulpy", with tentacles, a long proboscis, and "forty eyes". A reference to Lovecraft, maybe? What fascinates me is how this "nauseous whiteness", or in other words the disgusting modern man, undergoes in dying a "transfiguration", a "blasphemous, unnatural transmutation of form and substance, shocking and indescribable", before the walls come tumbling down. What was Howard trying to say here exactly? Is humanity to be despised and belittled precisely because it has surrendered its better nature to the foulness of what Howard can only describe as "cosmic filth"? Yes, which makes Howard even more Ambrose Bierce-like than Smith, I think. Definiely an extreme nay-sayer, and a porous self.

jkh

Kipling, it's a while since I read "The Valley of the Worm" or other stories by Howard. But it sounds like it's a story of the abrupt shift in one man's experience from a buffered state to a porous state. If Allison is, at first, an ordinary modern man, regarding himself as a known thing in a world of known things, etc., who is suddenly compelled to acknowledge the "memories" imparted to him from distant ancestors, my description would fit, I think. Again, the terminology is Charles Taylor's and not mine.

Thinking about your posting and Taylor, it occurred to me that this might be a simple way to get at the difference between "porous" and "buffered" -- think of the change in the meaning of "genius."

Originally, a genius is a spirit that might somehow enter into or overcome a man. The Muse is a genius in this sense. If I remember it correctly, Plato's short dialogue "Ion" is about poetic inspiration, and he has this theory of the poet being seized upon by the inspiring "genius."

But of course for us a man's "genius" is nothing but his own faculties, operating at a higher than usual degree of cooperation or unity. And so literary biography becomes a field of extensive endeavor. Likewise with scientific or musical geniuses. But as far as I know, in the ancient world there was little interest in the poets and natural philosophers apart from a recounting of their productions. We have a few traditions about the appearance of, say, Socrates. We are told that Homer was blind -- is anything else said of him?

NOT that ALL conceptions of the porous self embrace this idea of genius, of course.

Dale, you are spot on regarding the Howard story. The self-image of the modern day, buffered narrator is that of a man made painfully aware of his own weakness or dependency on social constructs of Identity; a buffered" state of mind. I like your idea about the shifting concept of "genius" too. Plato's Gorgias is also relevant to the implied integrity of the artist, in that its dialogue condemns sophistry. Thanks!

jkh



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 19 Sep 23 | 06:40PM by Kipling.

"The Valley of the Worm" is in Lin Carter's early Ballantine fantasy series anthology The Young Magicians, so I'll have to take a look at it.

And a revisit of the Gorgias would be in order... read only once back in 2016....

I'm just a dabbler, but the position taken therein by Sophocles against "might makes right" is very poignant because of what finally happened to him. I do have a copy of Charles Anthon's 1841 Classical Dictionary, certainly one of the all-time most monumental feats of scholarship, like Johnson's dictionary. Anthon set himself to improve upon the first such work, which was by Lempriere.

jkh

With all three of these authors the perception of misanthropic intent is exaggerated, my comments about "The Valley of the Worm" notwithstanding. Lovecraft's non-fiction, including his poetry, doesn't often reflect the belittling of humanity as his fiction does. Howard wrote tales set in historical backgrounds ("Sword Woman" ought to be made into a film) that do not have the cynical POV of those in which the settings are wholly imaginary, and Smith's poetry, painting and sculpture is only marginally satirical.

jkh

Kipling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm just a dabbler, but the position taken therein
> by Sophocles against "might makes right" is very
> poignant because of what finally happened to him.
> I do have a copy of Charles Anthon's 1841
> Classical Dictionary, certainly one of the
> all-time most monumental feats of scholarship,
> like Johnson's dictionary. Anthon set himself to
> improve upon the first such work, which was by
> Lempriere.


The local university has been discarding many of its good books. My prizes include the 1950s Times Atlas of the World (5 volumes, elephant folios) and the Dictionary of National Biography, possibly the most browsable books in the English language. The DNBs were free. One volume was missing and three or four late volumes had evidently not been bought. I was able to get all of the missing volumes for about $50. The Atlases were 25c a volume as I recall. Also got a complete set of Encyclopedia Britannica, which I gave away. Other works of interest have been some folklore volumes -- for free. A fun catch was a 1945 volume of Who's Who (the British reference book), about 3000 pages, with entries for E. R. Eddison, Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Charles Williams, Dorothy Sayers, Arthur Machen, &c. as I recall without getting up to check.

My point is that libraries are discarding some of their greatest books because "it's all online now" and "those books weren't used." This is a pity for library users of the future, who, I fear, will find fewer and fewer books from pre-woke times. But it can be a great opportunity for scholarly individuals.

I thought possibly your Classical Dictionary was such a book.

It's an attractively rebound copy from a book shop. That's great about the DNBs, Dale.

What I've longed for is the library's multi-volume Oxford English Dictionary. Of course they ought to keep it. If they don't, I want it.

I've passed many happy hours in used book shops, but haven't been in one in years.

But I knew Powell's in Portland, Oregon, back in the 1970s, before it became an "institution" of Portlandia.

Sub-Saharan Africans (including their diaspora) and Indigenous Australians are nonhuman primates.

If anything Lovecraft was denigrating nonhuman primate fecundity. I wonder what he would think of the degraded modern society where there isn't just a deficit in Anglo-Saxon birthrates but Anglo-Saxon women are actually boosting the birthrate of primitive lower primates by producing albino hybrid variants of Capoid and Congoid extraction?

The entire world is becoming the predatory biracial ghetto he endured for a few years in Brookyln.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 21 Oct 23 | 07:39PM by ethnic purity.