Kyberean--
I don't intend to spend my time getting into a feud with you about all of this, since in the end literary criticism itself is ultimately subjective. However, I do intend to shew where I disagree strongly with what you've said.

Firstly, Clark Ashton Smith was not a misanthrope. A misanthrope is one who abhors humanity and attempts to have as little to do with it as possible. Whilst he may have felt alienated from much of humanity because of his differing viewpoints on existence, etc., I see nothing in either his letters, his works, or what I've read biographically of him that indicates that he was anything like the textbook misanthrope (i.e. Jonathan Swift). Thus, once again I believe you're choosing too extreme a term to label him. As for manufacturing illegal liquour, many people were doing that at that time -- and I'd warrant most of them wouldn't see themselves as either misanthropes or Satanic rebels. Though I agree that he was an adulterer, there have been many poets since time immemorial (such as Ovid) that have indulged in that vice, and thus I see no reason to hold that up as any proof that Smith's views on the basic fundamentals of morality were any different from the rest of us. One can see from his tales that he believed the murder of another human being (the basic cornerstone of human morality) to be evil.

I believe you're also mistaking Smith's usage of taboo themes such as necrophilia as an indication of his subjective moralism. I don't believe so at all; I believe it is merely part of the way that he portrays the hideous in a richly decadent fashion in order to make it seem all the more hideous. And it works, which is why his tales of horror are so effective.

As for interpreting Baudelaire wrongly, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't know enough of his personal life to tell how closely he actually resembled the personae that he often adopted; however, I've read enough of his poetry to know that it can easily be interpreted (however wrongly) as an embrace of evil. As defending or maligning Baudelaire is of little interest to me, I don't intend to discuss him any further.

And to defend Clark Ashton Smith's translations of Baudelaire, I would like to add that perhaps my preferring Smith's versions merely has to do with the fact that they have some of fantastic flavour that Smith's own poetry has rather than the cynical tone that Baudelaire -- or I should say his personae -- tend to adopt.

Like I said at the beginning of this thread, however, I would prefer if this thread didn't turn into a feud! I believe we simply have different viewpoints on Smith and his writings and influences and we should just leave it at that.

We have seen the darkness
Where charnel things decay,
Where atom moves with atom
In shining swift array,
Like ordered constellations
On some sidereal way.
--from Nyctalops



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 22 Apr 07 | 11:34AM by ArkhamMaid.

ArkhamMaid:


Miss, if anyone is trying to degrade this exchange into a feud, then it is you, not I. Given the fact that your main form of argument in this debate has consisted primarily of superficial, uninformed rejoinders that either misinterpret the points in question, or ignore substantial points of disagreement completely, I think that I have been very polite and forbearing with you. Since, however, that tactic has not seemed to work with you, I shall remove the gloves, if you like.

Quote:

Firstly, Clark Ashton Smith was not a misanthrope.

Educate yourself. [www.eldritchdark.com]

Quote:

Thus, once again I believe you're choosing too extreme a term to label him.

If so, then I am in good company, better company than yours, as a matter of fact.

Quote:

As for manufacturing illegal liquour, many people were doing that at that time -- and I'd warrant most of them wouldn't see themselves as either misanthropes or Satanic rebels. Though I agree that he was an adulterer, there have been many poets since time immemorial (such as Ovid) that have indulged in that vice, and thus I see no reason to hold that up as any proof that Smith's views on the basic fundamentals of morality were any different from the rest of us.

Ah, I see. So, if it is a vice that you do not personally deem "repugnant", to use your term, or if it is commonly accepted among others, then it is all right. Thank you for reinforcing my point about the perspectival and subjective nature of morality!

In addition, you completely distort and misconstrue my remarks about CAS's character, which were not to demonstrate that, say, operating a still made CAS a "Satanic rebel". Rather, they were to refute your view of CAS as subscribing to a simplistic and conventional morality of "right" and "wrong".

To take a person's statement out of contest and to apply it to an entirely different one, in the hope of making that person look foolish, is a very intellectually dishonest debate technique, by the way.

Quote:

One can see from his tales that he believed the murder of another human being (the basic cornerstone of human morality) to be evil.

And your proof and argument in support of these bare and unsupported assertions would be...?

Quote:

I believe you're also mistaking Smith's usage of taboo themes such as necrophilia as an indication of his subjective moralism.

Once again, you wrench my comment completely out of its original context and try to apply it to an alien one. My point about CAS's "repugnant" themes versus Baudelaire's has nothing to do with "subjective moralism". It is in reference to your remark about CAS's not translating the "repugnant" poems of Baudelaire. It is also in reference to your implication that CAS not only did not write equally "repugnant" material, but that he was exercising a censorious moral judgment about certain of Baudelaire's poems. Squirm and wriggle and invoke the Diety of Subjectivity all you like; you are simply wrong on this point.

Quote:

I believe it is merely part of the way that he portrays the hideous in a richly decadent fashion in order to make it seem all the more hideous. And it works, which is why his tales of horror are so effective.

If you cannot also perceive the delectation that CAS takes in atmospheres of decay and horror, which were lifelong obsessions and themes of his, and if you are trying to recast him as a cautionary moralist of sorts, then your understanding of CAS's mind and work is severely deficient, to put it mildly.

Quote:

As for interpreting Baudelaire wrongly, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't know enough of his personal life to tell how closely he actually resembled the personae that he often adopted; however, I've read enough of his poetry to know that it can easily be interpreted (however wrongly) as an embrace of evil. As defending or maligning Baudelaire is of little interest to me, I don't intend to discuss him any further.

Why do you mention defending or maligning Baudelaire? No one has raised those subjects.

Again, my objection to your interpretation is that you are assuming without any foundation that Baudelaire's views are identical to his narrator's. I learned not to identify an author and his narrator in 10th grade English. Is that principle no longer taught?

Quote:

And to defend Clark Ashton Smith's translations of Baudelaire, I would like to add that perhaps my preferring Smith's versions merely has to do with the fact that they have some of fantastic flavour that Smith's own poetry has rather than the cynical tone that Baudelaire -- or I should say his personae -- tend to adopt.

So, according to you, a translator should ignore the tone and flavor of the original and impose his own foreign tone because he and others might like that sort of version better?

Quote:

Like I said at the beginning of this thread, however, I would prefer if this thread didn't turn into a feud! I believe we simply have different viewpoints on Smith and his writings and influences and we should just leave it at that.

As I mentioned, you are the one who is trying to turn this into a "feud". You keep returning to this thread, ignoring specific objections to your assertions, making ignorant and ill-informed ones in their place, and then trying to act as if I am the one who is taking a belligerent tone. That grows tedious, and I regret now that I have wasted so much time attempting to have a mature, serious, and rational dialogue wih you, since your skull is obviously impervious to any but your fixed ideas. Still, let me repeat my main point, so perhaps it might still have a chance to sink in:

"I want to be clear that I am not proposing Romantic Satanism as the Rosetta stone, or, perhaps more approppriately, as the skeleton key to the work and thought of CAS. I merely think that it is but one lens, previously unused, that would illuminate aspects of CAS's work".

Why you have such a problem with this simple and modest thesis, I have no idea. I suppose that it stems from the fact that, once again, you simply have no idea whatsoever what Romantic Satanism is. It is a shame that you did not take the opportunity to learn something from this thread, instead of taking umbrage and blindly posting according to your own prejudices and your preferred view of CAS. I will leave you now to your schoolgirl crush on CAS (Word of advice: Your posts on this aspect of your interest in CAS make me feel embarrassed for you, and I doubt that I am alone in this), as there is no point in discussing the matter further with you.

NightHalo:

Thanks again for bringing an informed and rational perspective to this thread. Even though you and I also do not agree entirely on a few particulars, mostly regarding Schock, our exchange at least demonstrates that rational and constructive dialogue is sometimes possible in these sorts of fora.


Boyd: This thread, I think, has served its purpose. If you agree, then please lock it. If not, then I am "informally" closing it, myself, and will not be revisiting it.

I would respond in length to this post except that to do so would be too great a temptation to stoop down to your level of rhetoric. I merely say that you obviously cannot bear to have someone else who might point out a differing viewpoint of yours and that you have shown just what sort of person you are with your ad hominem attacks regarding my "schoolgirl crush," as you put it. You know as well as I do that at the beginning of this thread, I agreed that Milton's Satan could have been an influence on Smith's works. You also know that I agreed that Clark Ashton Smith might -- and indeed did -- feel alienated from much of humanity. If I still believe that the term misanthrope is a bit harsh, then that is my subjective opinion (which ought to please you). Also, I would like to point out that it is you who started this with your comment about the "Pavlovian" reactions to your thesis. As I am pretty much the only one who questioned your thesis, I assume that I am the only one that you were thinking of when you wrote that. I wasn't angry then, nor am I now; and I apologise if my comments could be construed as misinterpreting what you have been trying to say. It only surprises me at how defensive you get when anyone happens to question a few points of your thesis.

Also, I'd like to add something: I am sorry for misinterpreting what you meant in your thesis. I apologise: I was wrong and thought you meant something quite different. I still am hurt by the attack upon my character in your responses, but I wouldn't feel right if I didn't apologise for any hard feelings you might have felt by my misunderstanding.

We have seen the darkness
Where charnel things decay,
Where atom moves with atom
In shining swift array,
Like ordered constellations
On some sidereal way.
--from Nyctalops



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 22 Apr 07 | 02:59PM by ArkhamMaid.

General:

I've read the above with a mix of interest and a little sadness, I admit. I hope that neither of you leave this forum with a great deal of upsetness. I think it is a testimony of CAS' great writing that we, of myriad backgrounds and interests, are brought here together in appreciation of him. We are different ages; we are of different opinions, but I think it is very clear to state that we all have a passion for him.


Kyberean:

I do agree with most everything you've said regarding Romantic Satanism. I know you've studied it for a long time and when push comes to shove, I will usually put my coin with you just because I know you've been studying the topic for years. Luckily though, I do not have to agree with you just on trust because I have been fortunate enough to have been educated on the topic through my degrees. In that regard, let us not forget our ages even if most of us at this site have a lot of maturity. ArkhamMaid (and I hope this does not offend you ArkhamMaid, I only mean it in a good way) has learned everything she knows about CAS from this site and her personal reading. I lack faith in our school system to attribute her knowledge to just high school learning, so in that regard, she deserves credit for what she has done so far (you probably already know this, but it is worth saying). If she seems stubborn on the topic, I would say she is in good hands (you can be stubborn too, but as I think we agree, stubbornness can be a good quality and a part/ or even weakness of our passions).

ArkhamMaid:

I came on this board when I was your age (I am guessing) and I had lurked here for a long time before that. I think you deserve credit for a lot of what you know already. When I came on this board, I didn't know nearly as much as you seem to know on the topic of CAS. Most high schools and such do not even brush on darker poets like CAS or Baudelaire, so it is an admirable thing that you've spoken up for what you think is true here (even if some of it needs revising). I was always very silent because I didn't know enough about the topics at times, but you deserve credit for courage. However, I hope you are not hurt by Kyberean's statements. In college a lot of professors and even graduate student instructors can be even harsher than Kyberean might seem now. I've had them personally attack me in papers for my ideas even if they were supposed to give constructive criticism. It is a quality of being passionate about a subject that makes us get our fur raised so to speak. So learn, open your ears to all the voices here, and keep that passion of yours.

We are a little disjoined, but remarkably educated/intellectual, family at this CAS board, and though there are "feuds" here and there, it is worth noting we are few and we ought to each contribute a voice to CAS, where the majority forget.

PS. I think the Pavalonian statement was in regard to Dr. Farmer's comment in the other thread. It is one of the unfortunate "feuds" here but with opinions strong on each side, so I think Kyberean was not referring to you ArkhamMaid.


~End Nighthalo's motherly lectures :P



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 22 Apr 07 | 04:28PM by NightHalo.

Thank you so much for your post, NightHalo. You really, truly made my day. Again, I want Kyberean to understand that I admit that I was wrong about the majority of my protest against his thesis. I still disagree about his opinion on CAS's personal character, but that doesn't mean that I don't value his argument and that I will, in fact, be looking forward to reading his literary paper once he writes it and posts it here on this board.

We have seen the darkness
Where charnel things decay,
Where atom moves with atom
In shining swift array,
Like ordered constellations
On some sidereal way.
--from Nyctalops

Last thoughts:


I did not even read ArkhamMaid's last post, nor do I intend to do so. Life is too short....

NightHalo, you are quite right that I can be stubborn, but my conscience is clear, in this instance. My stubbornness here is restricted merely to insisting that there is some sort of relationship between CAS's work and Romantic Satanism, and that that relationship is worth exploring, without its being dismissed out of hand or simply gainsaid without accompanying facts or rigorous argument. I also have zero tolerance for seeing my statements twisted out of context, whether by sloppy reading or by deliberate misrepresentation. That is really all there is to the matter, as I see it.

At any rate, although I do not come often to this forum, anymore, I did so this time because I could not think of a better place to discuss the ideas regarding CAS and Romantic Satanism that have been percolating anew in my brain since I started reading Schock's book on the latter subject. Aside from your comments, however, it was obviously not a fruitful idea to do so, and I can speak with you privately, if I wish. Anyway, if I do not post here again, or if I do so rarely, then it won't be because any of this has "upset" me in any way--it has not--but simply because there is little point in my doing so!


P.S. The "Pavlovian" remark was really not directed at anyone here, in particular, unless, as I mentioned, it happens to fit. It was a general observation about the way the word "Satanism" still evokes such reactions, in general, even in the 21st Century.

Amazing. Not even a simple apology can satisfy you.

I did not read your apology, before I posted. I saw your one-line reply here only by chance. Anyway, if you apologize, then I accept it. I hope that now we can move on from this.

How Olympus lightnings and rumbles when mere mortals defy its authority nnd power.
Too jejeune for belief -- enough! the ancient lion, roused from his somnolence, roars ineffectively in his chains - hush now, and let him return to his unquiet slumbers.

I have been following this thread with great interest, but have been unable to contribute to it myself because I am proofreading volume 2 of the Night Shade Books CAS (THE DOOR TO SATURN) and need to turn it in by Tuesday to meet the June publication date. I thought that both Kyberean and ArkhamMaid were both making excellent points and observations, and that the forensic process of argument, counterargument, and defense was working quite well. I am sorry to see that tempers began to fly, which is especially sad as it appears to me that both parties are in agreement as to kind, differing only in degree.
A few observations: Brian Stableford, in a review of Smith's translations that will appear in LOST WORLDS no. 5 (no. 4 is at the printer, with no. 5 ready to go), basically agrees with Kyberean that CAS' translations of Baudelaire are lacking in many ways. He points out that CAS is one of the first translators who attempted to present an unbowdlerized version of Smith, and that as such his efforts must be considered as heroic, regardless of their technical flaws. Fred Chappell wrote "If I knew a young poet who wanted to understand something of Baudelaire but had not had opportunity to study French, I would confidently recommend a list of Smith's poems to communicate a vivid impression of what the Symbolist master had accomplished." Did Smith's translations distort the pure quill of Baudelairean Satanism? Probably: to go all post structuralist for a moment, once Baudelaire wrote his poems he became just another reader of them. Smith's translations then achieve interest as poems in their own right, not just to the degree that they reflect CPB's original meaning.
Regarding Steve Behrend's essays on CAS as a misanthrope, a number of writers including S. T. Joshi have written to the effect that there is really not a lot of difference between a Cosmicist and a Misanthrope. This of course does not mean that he was incapable of friendship. He was a very lonely person (see his poem "Town Lights" for just one particularly poignant expression of this loneliness), but also a very private person who could be wary of people attempting to get too close.
CAS definitely espoused a literature of rebellion, and took an almost gnostic view of the conflict between God (whom he seems to have identified with the demiurge of the gnostics as a false god) and Satan, whose rebellion he viewed as positive and liberating. Brian Stableford identifies the French Jansenists as an influence, but I for one can't see it (probably because I'm not that familiar with their writings.) I think that whichever wrote that his Literary Satanism is of a British and Romantic nature rather than a French and Gothic is closest to the truth.
Anyway, LOST WORLDS will be publishing three issues this year, and I would love to see this material written up in essay form. I would be very sad indeed to see two individuals with such fascinating and passionate ideas regarding CAS's work emulate the calico cat and the gingham dog. Loramepam for everybody? :)
(Nurse's way of saying "Take a chill pill....")

Scott:

I am glad that you were able to find time to contribute your observations to this thread.

First, with respect to the personal stuff: I believe that it is now all well in hand--at least, from my perspective, it is--and therefore no psycho-pharmacological interventions are necessary! Teapot tempests are a part of life in the world of Internet fora, for better or for worse, and, with the exception of NightHalo, I believe that everyone who has visited this thread, so far, has participated in one at some point. It takes much more than something such as this for me to hold a grudge.

Enough of that.

Thank you for mentioning the forthcoming Stableford article regarding CAS's Baudelaire translations. I agree that, whatever their deficiencies, the Baudelaire translations are of tremendous interest as they relate to CAS, and I would actually agree with ArkhamMaid that they are CAS poems, although, according to my personal philosophy of translation, that is not a good thing. I consider CAS's translations of Baudelaire to be adaptations, and on that level, I have no problem with them.

By the way, wasn't one of CAS's adaptations of Baudelaire, "The Owls", mistakenly attributed to CAS under the pseudonym "Timeus Gaylord" in Derleth's anthology of weird poetry, Dark of the Moon? It's good to see that old Augie's editorial practices were as rigorous as ever. ;-) I am tempted at times even to call the CAS adaptations of Baudelaire "posthumous collaborations"....

As for the "Cosmicism or Misanthrope" article, you relay some interesting observations. I suppose that Behrends would take the contrary position that any sort of acrimony toward the human race automatically disqualifies one from having a detached cosmic perspective. The weakness in this argument, for me, is that it creates an extreme, and, I think, impossible standard. In addition, Behrends constantly contrasts Lovecraft to CAS, and he upholds the former as an exemplar of the cosmic perspective. Anyone who knows anything about Lovecraft, however, should be aware that he was anything but a disinterested observer of humanity. Those who doubt this should read some of his letters from his New York City period!

In sum, I think that Behrends makes an excellent case for CAS's misanthropy, but his error consists of assuming that one must be either a cosmicist or a misanthrope. One can certainly be both, if only alternately. In my opinion, in CAS's case, it is a question of "both-and", not "either-or".

In any case, what makes CAS an interesting subject for an essay on Romantic Satanism, in my view, is the original dimension CAS's cosmicism adds to the theme. See, for instance, "Nero", a quintessentially Miltonic Satanic figure in CAS's poem, whose musings of dominance extend even to the outer cosmos. NightHalo's idea of a "numinous Satanism" is another that is well worth exploring.

By the way, I believe that there also exists in the "Criticism" section of this Web site a very brief and superficial discussion of CAS as "literary Satanist" by Don Webb. Webb approaches the subject from the perspective of an actual practitioner, however, which is of no interest to me in this context.

As for the Jansenists, my memory may be failing me, but I think that Stableford was drawing upon their views more as an objective parallel between themselves and CAS, than as an actual influence. I could be mistaken, though.

Anyway, thanks for the invitation to contribute to Lost Worlds. I would love to pursue this subject further, I can ever find the time and the proper level of inspiration to do so. It would be a lot easier if my academic position were tenure-track...

Thanks for coming to this thread, Scott; like Kyberean said, everything's forgiven or forgotten by me -- well, except maybe for the "schoolgirl crush" comments... ;)

By the way, does LOST WORLDS publish fiction as well as scholarly treatises? Because if so, I would be interested in submitting my own writing as well, if it's possible.

We have seen the darkness
Where charnel things decay,
Where atom moves with atom
In shining swift array,
Like ordered constellations
On some sidereal way.
--from Nyctalops

I want to answer a couple of points quickly before I crash for the night (have to work tomorrow afternoon):
>
> By the way, wasn't one of CAS's adaptations of
> Baudelaire, "The Owls", mistakenly attributed to
> CAS under the pseudonym "Timeus Gaylord" in
> Derleth's anthology of weird poetry, Dark of the
> Moon? It's good to see that old Augie's editorial
> practices were as rigorous as ever. ;-) I am
> tempted at times even to call the CAS adaptations
> of Baudelaire "posthumous collaborations"....

There weren't no mistake about it: CAS published "The Owls" in Weird Tales under the "Timeus Gaylord" pseudonym, and Derleth just ran with the gag. While the Augman did a lot of stuff that I don't agree with, he always did right by Smith, and I've come to be a lot more forgiving of his fallabilities as I experience more of life, and have discovered my own shortcomings.
>
> As for the "Cosmicism or Misanthrope" article, you
> relay some interesting observations. I suppose
> that Behrends would take the contrary position
> that any sort of acrimony toward the human race
> automatically disqualifies one from having a
> detached cosmic perspective. The weakness in this
> argument, for me, is that it creates an extreme,
> and, I think, impossible standard. In addition,
> Behrends constantly contrasts Lovecraft to CAS,
> and he upholds the former as an exemplar of the
> cosmic perspective. Anyone who knows anything
> about Lovecraft, however, should be aware that he
> was anything but a disinterested observer of
> humanity. Those who doubt this should read some of
> his letters from his New York City period!


> In sum, I think that Behrends makes an excellent
> case for CAS's misanthropy, but his error consists
> of assuming that one must be either a cosmicist or
> a misanthrope. One can certainly be both, if only
> alternately. In my opinion, in CAS's case, it is a
> question of "both-and", not "either-or".

Personally I consider the whole "Cosmicist/Misanthrope" distinction to be "ToeMAYtoe/TaMAHtoe." It is entirely possible to be misanthropic and still be nice to other people.

More later. I still have an essay on M. R. James to finish, then a 'zine for EOD, LOST WORLDS 4 to send to the printer, and my next WT column.

Best,
Scott

As for "The Owls", that is interesting; I did not know that it had appeared originally in Weird Tales.Transfer my little brickbat to Wright, then!

A quick aside re. Derleth: I think we have discussed him before in this forum, and there's no need to rehash that, but, although I have a more negative "Joshian" (at least, as of the time of his HPL biography) view of him than you do, I certainly am not blind to his virtues. I agree that, in the main, he seems to have treated CAS well, although I'd still like to know why it took twenty-two years to publish the Selected Poems....

Re. cosmicism versus misanthropy, I do think that Behrends has a point. if one gets too worked up over humanity, and the social sphere of life, in general, then it can certainly be argued that one has lost, if only temporarily, one's cosmic perspective. One can, however, still be both misanthropic and cosmic in one's personal views, even if there is not perfect consistency.

I completely agree with you that misanthropes can be quite agreeable in individual interactions. I have met self-avowed misanthropes, and they have been some of the most polite and thoughtful individuals I have encountered, On the other hand, some of the most pretentious, rude, condescending, and generally disagreeable people I have met have been politically liberal, self-avowed "lovers of humanity". It is far easier to love an abstraction, such as "humanity", than it is to love individuals, with all their eccentricities and foibles! By contrast, there is a quotation from Swift, which I cannot remeber verbatim, but is something to the effect of, "I can love Paul or Mary with all my heart, but I hate the species called humanity" ( a very rough paraphrase, but it captures the gist of it). I suspect that CAS was a misanthrope of this last type.

Erm, I don't want to get repetitive, but again I ask: does anyone know whether LOST WORLDS publishes fiction? Or does it just deal with treatises on Smith's works?

We have seen the darkness
Where charnel things decay,
Where atom moves with atom
In shining swift array,
Like ordered constellations
On some sidereal way.
--from Nyctalops