Having made my main points earlier regarding Simon, I'd like to address the concept of the relevance of the texts gathered.
Yes, I agree that the texts gathered together here must have relevance to the site's theme: the life, works and interpretation of Clark Ashton Smith. And yes, I would like to see more critical material: hence the attempts, momentarily stalled, to look at individual poems, and my current work on several essays for (hopefully) future publication here.
The question remains: is Simon's piece relevant as a pice about, or relating to, CAS, or does it remain peripheral? In part, according to my reading, it is both. At one point, it looks at the racial response by CAS to the presence of Jews in publishing, and then it argues that such a reaction is justified: some aspects of prejudice are justified, these aspects here are, therefore CAS had a right to express his antisemitism.
There has been recent research which argues that the more negative stereotypes are applied to a group, the more likely those negative characteristics are adopted by the group; the same is not true of positive characteristics. Thus, we can argue that Christians have absorbed such negative characteristics as hypocrisy, and, especially with Protestant Christians, a concern with wealth and power as being indicative of divine favour. With Jews, as a result of centuries of Christian antisemitism and focus upon the afterlife, rather than the material, corporeal aspects as embodied in the profane world of usury, the Jews have been forced to adopt a concern with money, as the moneylenders to the Christians. The Christians needed the Jewish money, and hated them for that need, and punished them as a result.
Therefore, the spheres of money and finance became the locus for Jewish activity, and CAS' comments on Jews in that respect become no more than unthinking boorishness, which, nonetheless, remain problematic.
When we look at Simon's work, then, in light of these considerations, how relevant is it? I would argue that it is in effect liminal, borderline. It can be argued that the initial focus on CAS and the expressions of his antisemitism is enough to maintain a relevance to the site. Others may argue that the divorce of the bulk of the argument, the focus on the supposed validity of prejudice in fact, is enough to warrant its consideration as irrelevant. Here, we must argue--pro, contra--over that central issue: is this piece relevant to the site's avowed focus? That must be our focus.
One sociological argument looks at the question of group boundaries. It argues that periodically someone or something will test a group's boundaries, and this is either absorbed or rejected by the group; in the process, the boundaries shift, to reflect the process, and new standards are assumed. I see both the war banner, and this essay as prime examples of this process. Simon, here, is challenging us to accept certain standards of relevance to CAS. Need a text only be about CAS, mainly about him, partially about him, or peripherally about him, to be accepted? This instance, this question is relevant to everything on the site, from his articles to my poems, and beyond, and it also indicates that we should have a healthy, flourishing climate for both intellectual and aesthetic debate, that we can address this issue without dogmatism or division.
We need, then, Simon's essay, as it helps define what we, as a group, mean by CAS, and what we will accept as relevant to our own fascination with him and his legacy.
*Author of
Strange Gardens [
www.lulu.com]
*Editor of
Calenture: a Journal of Studies in Speculative Verse [
calenture.fcpages.com]
*Visit my homepage: [
voleboy.freewebpages.org]