Reading a report on the quadrupled rat population of New York City followed my reading of this story of crime, pursuit, and dishonor among thieves, by the author of DRACULA. Said "burial" is a metaphor describing the gnawing of a corpse by the rats, a contemptuous disposal of the bodies of the dead in rat-infested dwellings sometimes resorted to by murderers. Figuratively, it also refers to the soul-rotting effect of extreme poverty, alcohol addiction and violence on the wretched urban poor, the ragpickers of Paris whom the first-,person narrator encounters. If you've read Stoker before you know that his matter of fact narrative style is very effective in building suspense. Some readers of DRACULA assume that Stoker's moral values, representative of middle to upper class Victorian society (he was the business manager for Henry Irving, the famous actor), and this is indeed the case. However, the stories posthumously published by his widow in Dracula's Guest and Other Weird Stories (1914) are a bit surprising in their cynical world view. He seems to have seen humanity as a lost cause, without the saving bonds of marriage at least. His narrator here is nursing a dual sense of self-pity and idle curiosity about the "centralisation" of the French capital, a trend he views as destructive of tradition. The squalor and filth of the area he seeks out seems to prove in the outcome his belief in the futility of all human action. Arthur Machen also had this despairing conviction that nothing we do is ultimately worth doing. Only thoughts are important, although "action may be a means of producing thought", as in the writing of a book. For Stoker, the "City of Dust" is proof of the inevitable debasement in the quality of life, evidenced by the culture's loss of language (his conversation with the old crone who attempts to have him killed), and the "classification" resulting from the centralisation of government. Decadence in all levels of society follows (teacher's unions for example). How might this relate to Clark Ashton Smith's life and works? Is class consciousness a relic essential to horror fiction? If not, what has replaced it?

jkh



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 23 Aug 23 | 02:30PM by Kipling.

Should read: "Some readers of DRACULA assume that its characters reflect Stoker's moral values, (etc.).

jkh

Kipling, this remark startled me --

"Arthur Machen also had this despairing conviction that nothing we do is ultimately worth doing."

Certainly he was a skeptic as regards the managerial state, which has only become massively more bloated since his time; and Randi Weingarten and the teachers' unions would appall him.

But surely he thought at least three things eminently worth doing.

1.Appropriate religious worship.
2.Art -- literary, musical, visual, etc. He regarded art as the sign or "signature" of our humanness.
3.Ordinary decent activities such as raising families, enjoying good talk in a good tavern, etc.

The statement I've quoted would make Machen a nay-sayer, but surely he is a yea-sayer.

Then basically, for the sake of this thread and previous ones dealing with yea-sayers and nay-sayers, a "nay-sayer" is a post-modern nihilist at some level?

--Sawfish

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

Yes he was, but the remarks were written in his composition notebook, Dale. You can see how autobiographical "The Hill of Dreams" was by reading his thoughts alongside of his plot ideas. Machen would not see value in most popular music of today either, probably, and most people today don't practise any of the three activities you mention, so I took it as a case of Machen projecting his own frustration into a foreseeable future. Does that make sense?

jkh

Kipling, you have access to the Machen notebook, which I don't -- although I suppose some of it shows up in The London Adventure.

So I will revise my remark to say that I don't think Machen believed that "nothing we do is ultimately worth doing" during most of his adult life. I doubt that he ever thought that way except perhaps in some moods relating to frustration with the labors of literary composition combined with the experience of loneliness and poverty. But I'll admit that I don't much care for The Hill of Dreams and that remarkably self-pitying novel The Secret Glory -- works that admittedly might support your statement rather well.

So do we agree that the statement I quoted might be true for Machen at some times in his life but not others? If so, then the difference between us might be basically "how much" of his life is to be characterized as under that feeling, with me seeing it as relatively less and you as relatively more.

The notebook is from, what -- the mid 1890s at latest?

I see Machen as a maturing literary artist; I realize many people see him as someone who burst out with a handful of masterpieces in his thirties or so, followed by a long, long decline in which he wrote relatively minor and not very interesting works.

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Then basically, for the sake of this thread and
> previous ones dealing with yea-sayers and
> nay-sayers, a "nay-sayer" is a post-modern
> nihilist at some level?


No, I wouldn't go along with that because I think there have been nay-sayers for many centuries before postmodernism. I mean, I'd probably see much in Eastern tradition as nay-saying -- "there are those who'd have said that mere existence is damnation, basically. Democritus may have been a nay-sayer. The Manichees were, if this passage quoted in Wikipedia is correct:

"The pain suffered by the imprisoned Light-Particles in the whole of the visible universe, on the other hand, was real and immanent. This was symbolized by the mystic placing of the Cross whereby the wounds of the passion of our souls are set forth. ...This mystica crucifixio was present in every tree, herb, fruit, vegetable and even stones and the soil."

And around Shakespeare's day I suppose Christopher Marlowe was a nay-sayer, and so on.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Then basically, for the sake of this thread and
> > previous ones dealing with yea-sayers and
> > nay-sayers, a "nay-sayer" is a post-modern
> > nihilist at some level?
>
>
> No, I wouldn't go along with that because I think
> there have been nay-sayers for many centuries
> before postmodernism. I mean, I'd probably see
> much in Eastern tradition as nay-saying -- "there
> are those who'd have said that mere existence is
> damnation, basically. Democritus may have been a
> nay-sayer. The Manichees were, if this passage
> quoted in Wikipedia is correct:
>
> "The pain suffered by the imprisoned
> Light-Particles in the whole of the visible
> universe, on the other hand, was real and
> immanent. This was symbolized by the mystic
> placing of the Cross whereby the wounds of the
> passion of our souls are set forth. ...This
> mystica crucifixio was present in every tree,
> herb, fruit, vegetable and even stones and the
> soil."
>
> And around Shakespeare's day I suppose Christopher
> Marlowe was a nay-sayer, and so on.


This is really quite a topic (yea-say/nay-say) when given some thought.

So at this point in western history we have modernism, followed closely by post-modernism, and in fact both lines of thought co-exist, with post-modernism superseding, but not entirely eradicating modernism.

Right here it would be good to define terms philosophically. Simply put, modernism was the positive reaction to the flowering of the enlightenment. Those subscribing to it were humanists, and they tended to regard mankind, and its positive accomplishments, as signal that everything was possible and the mankind would evolve ever "higher". In some sense they saw Mankind as a benevolent godhead.

Simplified, modernism is what you encountered at the 1950s Tomorrowland in the SCal version of Disneyland. The Jetsons was a cutesy cartoon version of the modernists' expectancy for mankind's future. Everything would be *better*.

Post-modernism was the recognition--doubtless by those who had earlier thought of themselves as modernists--that the always upward trajectory of humankind's development was not coming to pass, or at least not coming to pass without significant steps *backward* toward a newer and more efficient savagery. Probably the two world wars, as considered shortly after their conclusion, when the death camps, the ruins, and the victims of aerial bombing were still fresh on the pages of Life magazine and other photo-news sources, was responsible in part.

[A short observation here is in order. These same Life pictorial volumes were in my elementary school's library, and I can still remember paging thru them more than once. I was likely 7-10 years old. It was meaningless to me, but one thing for sure: it was the world that I occupied, along with my family and everyone else. The more puzzling part was that the camps were labeled as the results of evil, while the ruins of Hiroshima, or the piled, charred corpses of the Tokyo firebombing, were labeled as regrettable artifacts of our will to save the world from evil.

*That's* my introduction to post-modernism, in a nutshell.]

So given this, you can readily see what motivates today's nay-sayers. For today's yea-sayers, I'd think that they must necessarily be motivated by faith. And this dichotomy holds true for the modernism/post-modernism era.

But what motivated nay-sayers of the distant past, prior to the Enlightenment? Was it also belief, but in a less-than-good deity? Or was it lack of belief? It would be interesting to figure that out.

--Sawfish

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

Sawfish, this is awkward for me because "modernist" and "postmodernist" are, for me, primarily literary-critical terms (which you are usually for much that isn't literary) -- and I was mostly turned off by literary theory from the time I first encountered it, around 1984. In grad school I wanted to read the standard works themselves, not jargon-laden French-inflected leftist theory. (I also wanted to go nuts like the kid in the candy shop, and I did, with all the genre books that were now available to me in, or on interlibrary loan through, the university library. I'd been getting into M. R. James and his tradition especially, and I could get hold of any of those books I wanted -- for the asking! I remember handling a book from Lawrence of Arabia's library that had ended up on the shelves. More to the point of ED, there was an Algernon Blackwood book signed by the author, etc.)

You mention back issues of Life. The campus library here discarded nearly all of its archive of magazines, and I saved a lot of issues for which I didn't really have room. I saved only a few Life issues. But, looking through some of them, I remember an extremely gruesome painting of a GI mauled -- by some kind of bomb, I suppose. Those magazines were really not safe for little kids. I gather you didn't happen across that issue.

You know, it's asking a lot for me to remember with any specificity what I saw anywhere from 1954-57.

My best guess is that it was this sort of publication.

[www.life.com]

Bearing in mind, that the current sensibility cannot easily envision that all this was not properly, AHEM! curated. But in rural S Cal in the mid-50s, not so much.

--Sawfish

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

So far as modernism as a philosophy, this short explanation from Wikipedia helps:

Some commentators define modernism as a mode of thinking—one or more philosophically defined characteristics, like self-consciousness or self-reference, that run across all the novelties in the arts and the disciplines.More common, especially in the West, are those who see it as a socially progressive trend of thought that affirms the power of human beings to create, improve, and reshape their environment with the aid of practical experimentation, scientific knowledge, or technology. From this perspective, modernism encouraged the re-examination of every aspect of existence, from commerce to philosophy, with the goal of finding that which was holding back progress, and replacing it with new ways of reaching the same end.

--Sawfish

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

I carelessly wrote, "which you are usually for much that isn't literary" -- should have been "using."

I hope it didn't seem that I was saying your use is incorrect. It seems to me that the terms might not mean the same thing, in different contexts, and the literary one, from when I was getting an MA, is probably the one I'm most comfortable with, and yet I'm not very comfortable with it! Not only did I want to read "the works themselves" more than knotty things about them; the works I wanted to read were almost entirely Victorian-era or Romantic, etc.

But I think there's much truth in what you say about nay-sayers today in the US and Britain, anyway.

As for what motivated nay-sayers in the distant past, you ask? Well, apart from theological-type considerations that I won't go into, I might suggest: they feel or survey the suffering that chronically pervades life.

OK, then let's veer off just a bit, not worry so much about the terms "Modernism/Post-Modernism"; they seem to be confusing the issue. They were just compact and convenient labels, anyway. (FWIW, this is the idea of "macros" in programming: a label that contains a repeatable set of more complex instructions.)

To me, it's near inconceivable for a yea-sayer to NOT hold a deep belief in a better future. This could be either material or spiritual. And the converse would be true for a nay-sayer: deep belief in either a less beneficial future, or no future, at all.

Sure, we could find exceptions; I truly believe that nothing I encounter in life is an absolute (family relationships come closest), but there are broad tendencies. This means that most nay-sayers would tend to fit my description, and we could probably find, if we try, exceptions who are truly *pleased* at the prospect of a demonstrably worse future (making them a sort of perverted yea-sayer), but for the sake of this discussion let's ignore them as outliers. We could, if you want, explore them later.

So: do you see yea-sayers as sustained by a belief in a better future--material and/or spiritual? Do nay-sayers conversely see either no future, or a less rosy one?

You know me well enough to realize that this is no rhetorical trap. I'm really interested in the duality that you raised with "yea-sayer/nay-sayer". For me it's not enough to make thinly defined labels and then categorize authors beneath the labels. I'd like to actually try to get a grip on how/why they think as they do. That's more important (to me) that the categorization of names.

--Sawfish

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

Sawfish -- again, the yea-sayer/nay-sayer thing was intended as a tool to spur discussion, not as a sophisticated device for classifying authors. One of the things I like about the tool is that it can help us to see unexpected affinities between obviously different authors. For example, Lovecraft and Graham Greene were, I'd say, nay-sayers more than yea-sayers, and yet their differences are obvious; I can hardly imagine what they would say to each other if they found themselves the only occupants of a train carriage.

No, I wouldn't think yea-sayers have to believe in a future life. Did Walt Whitman believe in a future life? I don't think Stevenson did, but he was a great yea-sayer.

I see you as a yea-sayer. Cheerfulness keeps breaking through. The game is worth the candle. You would likely think American adolescent angst-mongers ought to buck up -- as I see you.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish -- again, the yea-sayer/nay-sayer thing
> was intended as a tool to spur discussion, not as
> a sophisticated device for classifying authors.
> One of the things I like about the tool is that it
> can help us to see unexpected affinities between
> obviously different authors. For example,
> Lovecraft and Graham Greene were, I'd say,
> nay-sayers more than yea-sayers, and yet their
> differences are obvious; I can hardly imagine what
> they would say to each other if they found
> themselves the only occupants of a train
> carriage.
>
> No, I wouldn't think yea-sayers have to believe in
> a future life. Did Walt Whitman believe in a
> future life?

That's not my proposition, however. It's

"...sustained by a belief in a better future--material and/or spiritual."

> I don't think Stevenson did, but he
> was a great yea-sayer.

Do you think they believed that humanity was tracking onward and upward? That the future was promising?

>
> I see you as a yea-sayer.

I do too, but it has a horizon: my daughter. With no off-spring I'd be a wastrel nay-sayer. I did not have a kid until I was six months short of 50. I know what my trajectory was. I do indeed have an affinity for low company--I kid you not.

> Cheerfulness keeps
> breaking through. The game is worth the candle.
> You would likely think American adolescent
> angst-mongers ought to buck up -- as I see you.

I think that's a fair read, Dale, but I only care about seeing my daughter's future as better (in some fashion) that my past/present was--and here's the pay-off: I believe that my life has been exceptional; huge amounts of luck involved, but also the capacity to see opportunities as they arise.

Certainly better, more secure than my grandparents and parents.

And knowing you somewhat, I feel pretty sure that this is how you see it for your kids. They supply a concrete meaning for one's life: if one is looking for a reason for one's existence, your kids are it. Any parent who does not deeply desire that their kids do better in some way than they have done in life, is unworthy of the title "parent".

I still think that in spite of the rot, this is the US. Do your work and your prep, and it's onward and upward!!! :^)

--Sawfish

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

"Do you think they believed that humanity was tracking onward and upward? That the future was promising?:

I don't know Whitman well, but I'd guess he did, and probably Stevenson did.

"That's not my proposition, however. It's

'...sustained by a belief in a better future--material and/or spiritual.'"

I didn't focus on that enough. I still don't think a yea-sayer would have to expect a "better future" even if just materially. But probably yea-sayers usually would expect a "better future" of some sort.

I think I agree with what you say about one's children.