An interesting subject, to me, and one that has not been much explored, to my knowledge, is the relationshp between CAS, his works, and what has been called "Romantic Satanism".

To be clear from the outset: I am not talking about any sort of religious or "occult" Satanism. Rather, I refer to the famous (or infamous) "misreading" of Milton's Paradise Lost by the English Romantic poets, and the subesequent idealization of the attributes of Satan in much Romantic literature. This theme extends at least to the time of the Decadents.

My sense is that CAS has very strong affinities with this "Satanic school", both personal and literary, and that, if nothing has been written to date on the subject, I might shake off my habitual lethargy, when it comes to literary criticism, and try my hand at it.

Your thoughts regarding the subject, and regarding the potential value of such an article (assuming that I have not been preempted on the subject)?

You have a point. But to tell you the truth, I don't believe that he was that influenced by the Satanic school except to the extent that Baudelaire inspired him to write the two poems "Satan Unrepentant" and "A Vision of Lucifer." Had it not been for his great admiration for Baudelaire, I doubt that he would have dabbled in that sort of poetry as most of his more original poems (i.e. not obviously inspired by Baudelaire) are more of a fantasy, romantic, or traditionally Poe-like type.

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 am not looking merely at the obvious. For example, Ashton Smith's Nero is a manifestly Satanic figure, in the Romantic sense of that term. There are also deeper affinities than the explicit to be explored here, I think. The formative influences of Bierce and of Anatole France's Revolt of the Angels come to mind.

I also believe that the influence of Baudelaire's work upon CAS's poetry is significantly less than is commonly supposed.

I definitely agree with you on that last point.

As for how influenced Smith was by the Satanic school of poetry, you may have something of a point; however, I always saw him leaning more towards imitating the Byronic hero (featured in some of Byron's works such as "Manfred") rather than Milton's Satan, but perhaps it was a combination of the two.

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

Yes, but there is a direct lineage between Milton's Satan and the Byronic hero, although, of course, they are not synonymous. There is an excellent discussion of this point in Mario Praz's critical study The Romantic Agony, a book that I cannot recommend highly enough to those who have the stomach for it!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 14 Apr 07 | 01:58PM by Kyberean.

Kyberean, I think that it would be a great project and one that would be very well done considering how long you've been thinking on this subject (I remember you mentioned it back in 2003 briefly).

I do see many elements of the "Satanic School" in CAS' poetry (one can see this dramatically in the "Hashish Eater"... the monologue, the power, is very much in line with the speeches of Satan in Milton but mixed with a sort of Blakean beauty and force as well (i.e. "Tyger Tyger burning bright"). I think to some extent this was inevitable since it is the darker side of Romanticism. The existential questions raised by Milton in Paradise Lost had profound effects on the likes of Byron, Shelley, and Keats. One has to remember that Paradise Lost was accused as being impious when it was written and one can hear this echoed in Southby's criticism of Byron as "impious, lewd, monsterous," etc. From what I've read, it was this precise criticism by Southby that only encouraged Byron to adopt more Satanic and rebellious themes. In Baudelaire, the poëte maudit comes straight from this Byronic hero.

A nice book on this subject is Romantic Satanism: Myth and the Historical Moment in Blake, Shelley, and Byron by Peter A. Schock, if anyone is interested. It is expensive, but then again, what an wonderful book to have on the shelf of any brooding soul.

Also, if you look at Sterling's poems, you can see a much closer relative to CAS' early work and influences. Look to Ambrose Bierce whom Sterling quotes at the beginning of the "Testimony of the Suns" and one can trace a strain of California Romanticism (from Bierce to Sterling to CAS) moving its eye, to what I can only term as a numinous Satanism.

Just my two cents.

Many thanks for your thoughts, NightHalo. The trajectories that you traced are among those that have crossed my mind, as well. The examples from CAS that you mention are certainly in point, too, and I think even of the tales, such as "The Devotee of Evil", one of whose alternative titles was "The Satanist". Certain of CAS's doomed, overweening heroes have a distinctly Satanic pride about them, and, as I mentioned, the eponymous speaker in the dramatic monologue "Nero" possesses this and other, similar qualities in abundance. At any rate, I am increasingly convinced that this would be a fruitful approach to CAS's work.

It's interesting that you mention Schock's Romantic Satanism book. I have borrowed a copy from the library (you aren't joking about the price!). While his somewhat reductionist historicizing approach does not convince me, so far, at least, it is an indispensable survey of the subject--the first book-length work on this topic, I think--and he appears to cover every relevant bit of text of the major English Romantics under discussion.

Pioneers in this realm, however, have not been wanting. Having an academic affiliation means, among other things, that I can now raid JSTOR with impunity, and search for older articles on the subject, as well. One excellent article on the topic that I read recently is "The Romantic Mind Is Its Own Place", by Peter L. Thorslev, Jr., in Comparative Literature, Vol. 15, No. 3. (Summer, 1963).

Just for fun, here are some of my favorite quotations from Milton's Satan. "Hail Horrors, hail infernal world", indeed! ;-)


Farewell happy Fields
Where Joy for ever dwells: Hail Horrors, hail
Infernal world, and thou profoundest Hell
Receive thy new Possessor: One who brings
A mind not to be chang'd by Place or Time.
The mind is its own place, and in itself,
Can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n.
(Paradise Lost 1: 249-55)

Me miserable! Which way shall I fly
Infinite wrath, and infinite despair?
Which way I fly is Hell; myself am Hell;
And in the lowest deep a lower deep
Still threat'ning to devour me opens wide,
To which the Hell I suffer seems a Heav'n.
(Paradise Lost 4: 73-78)

the more I see
Pleasures about me, so much more I feel
Torment within me, as from the hateful siege
Of contraries; all good to me becomes
Bane, and in Heav'n much worse would be my state.
But neither here seek I, no nor in Heav'n
To dwell, unless by maistring Heav'n's Supreme;
Nor hope to make myself less miserable
By what I seek, but others to make such
As I, though thereby worse to me redound:
For only in destroying I find ease
To my relentless thoughts.
(Paradise Lost 9: 119-30)

If I wasn't so busy, I would love to spend some time looking over CAS' poetry for these elements. I would also love to become more familiar with CAS' stories. I've had his books on my shelves for years but the lovely world of academia steals all my time for personal reading.

As for the Schock book, I must admit that I have a personal bias against anything that ever wants to attribute a whole body of poetry as a reaction to society. Yet, I think some of his arguements are compelling, especially considering the rise of social consciousness and the need for a new vision of society (i.e. Blake's criticisms and vision in "London," would necessarily need a Satanic voice to pose itself against normal values and the Church). However, I think for every 'reaction against society' arguement there can be a counter point for the individuality that was also espoused at this time period. One must remember that in this period the old family structures were breaking down and the individual came to be more important as traditional, family work began to dissapear. So any arguements for the individual can also be valid and very essential to understanding these "Satanic" sentiments.

~Alycia

PS. JSTOR is awesome. I've found some wonderful articles there before.

NightHalo, regarding Schock's thesis: I agree that it has value, and that it is a very well done and worthwhile exploration of a somewhat neglected aspect of the Romantic Satanist theme. As we discussed in a different context, however, while it may have been an exaggeration to over-emphasize the isolato in the context of Romantic Satanism, Schock's book, being somewhat reactive to this interpretation, pushes too hard in the opposite direction. As I am sure we agree, distorted views in one direction or the other fail to yield an accurate portrayal of the phenomenon as a whole.

I don't want to stray too far from the subject of Ashton Smith and Romantic Satanism, but, on the topic of individualism and Romanticism, in general, David Wright offers some excellent observations on the subject in his introduction to the anthology English Romantic Verse that are worth quoting at length.


"By [...] about the time Wordsworth was born [...] the Industrial Revolution [was] [...] under way. [It] made possible the kind of conglomerate rather than organic society we now live in, of which the nineteenth century was to see the birth. Among other things, the Industrial Revolution destroyed the family as an economic unit and converted the working individual into an impersonal labour force, to be used, as W.H. Auden put it, 'like water or electricity for so many hours a day'. The organic society of small towns and villages where everybody knew his neighbour began to be replaced by vast congeries in which individuals lost identity. Our mass society was born; a mass society fed and clothed by mass production and informed--if that is the word--by mass communications. [...] [T]he more sensitive intelligences, which usually turn out to belong to poets and artists--'the antennae of the race', in Pound's phrase--began to react, and in most cases to record disquiet.

[...] [R]omanticism was a birth of a new kind of sensibility which had to do with the new kind of environment that man was in the process of creating for himself. If the individual was on his way to being regimented, then poets and artists, as it were, by intuitive prescience, began to seek to rebalance the scale by giving the greatest value to individual consciousness. [...] In La Rebelion de las Masas (The Revolt of the Masses), 1930, [Ortega y Gasset] says, 'The mass is all that sets no value upon itself--good or ill--based on specific grounds, but which feels itself "just like everybody" [...]. The mass crushes beneath it everything that is different, everything that is individual, qualified, and select. Anybody who is not like everybody, who does not think like everybody, runs the risk of being eliminated'. The figure of the Solitary begins to occur in poetry about the same time as the advent of the Industrial Revolution that produced Ortega y Gasset's 'mass man'".


To show greater credibility, works such as Schock's must better account for this very pronounced aspect of Romanticism, and Romantic Satanism, as well.

I would add that CAS echoed many of the criticisms of mass society that Wright mentions, above. For instance, who can forget CAS's memorable critique of "the annals of the ant hill", and his professed aversion in his letters to any sort of "ant-like" economic and political organization?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 15 Apr 07 | 11:56AM by Kyberean.

Calonlan wrote:

Quote:

you may find my memoir enlightening and useful regarding the current conversation on Romantic Satanism (which I prefer not to discuss at this point)

Having little interest in CAS's juvenalia (I am not a "completist"), I did not purchase the volume that contains the memoir, and therefore I have not read it. Since Calonlan prefers not to join this discussion, can anyone else who has read it "enlighten" me as to the bearings its contents have on the subject at hand?

Well, it looks as if that's all for this one. I suppose that I'll have to troll for a used copy of Zagan, sometime, to see for myself how Dr. Farmer's remarks relate to this thread.

Thanks to Nighthalo for her constructive and useful comments. Thanks also to those who were less encouraging, whether explicitly or implicitly. Both sets of replies have their value, and they convince me more than ever that there is something to this line of inquiry. Whether I ever have the time or inspiration to devote to such explorations is, of course, another matter.

As an aside, it is also interesting to see the responses, at times Pavlovian, that any mention of the "S-word" may bring. This last is just a general observation, mind you, so no one here ought to take it personally, unless, of course, it fits.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 19 Apr 07 | 10:57AM by Kyberean.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As an aside, it is also interesting to see the
> responses, at times Pavlovian, that any mention of
> the "S-word" may bring. This last is just a
> general observation, mind you, so no one here
> ought to take it personally, unless, of course, it
> fits.

That's because of the peculiar potency of the S-word. ;) When I think of a Satanic author, I usually think of poets like Baudelaire who actually wrote paens in praise of evil and suffering. Smith never did that in either his poetry or his prose; it's interesting, in fact, to note how he scrupulously seemed to avoid translating many of Baudelaire's more repugnant opuses. If you ask me, Clark Ashton Smith's Baudelaire is better than Baudelaire's Baudelaire!

I hope that will explain my hesitancy when it comes to heading any of Smith's works as belonging to the school of Romantic Satanism. I can indeed see the influences of Milton's depiction of Satan in certain aspects of Smith's works, but as a general rule, I still believe the epithet is a bit extreme for a man whose works do, despite what his prudish neighbours in Auburn might have thought, adhere to a moral sense of right and wrong.

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 1 time(s). Last edit at 21 Apr 07 | 06:00PM by ArkhamMaid.

I think French Romantic Satanism as embodied by the likes of Baudelaire and Rimbaud is a form of the genre but certainly not the same as the English vein. From my study of the Romantics such as Blake, Shelley, and Byron, their sense of morality always seems very level. Their characters (or poems) may explore one horn of a dillemma but when it comes to the end of the story or the conclusion, there tends to be justice of some sort which most would term "good." For Blake, I see criticisms of morality all over the Songs of Innocence and Experience. In poems like "London" as I invoked above, he takes the Romantic Satanism approach through his tone, gross images, and his failing belief in humanity: we get little images of various people in the city and their suffering is certainly not endorsed, rather the poem critizes the typical good like the Church which commits crimes against these people. This, in my opinion, is one of the most important aspects of Romantic Satanism.

Through the eyes or voice of a rebellious and/or dark figure the poet is allowed to speak out against things he sees as social wrongs (in "London" above, we see his criticism of the structure of the city, wars, poverty, and marriage customs). Shelley's "The Cenci" is another interesting case in point and then if one looks to Byron, particularly in "Darkness" for instance, you see his wide sweeping across the earth and the criticism he has for humanity, for consumption, etc. I think it is poems like "Darkness" which would have influencesd CAS the most because you not only get a movement toward the cosmic and the apocalyptic but you also get a beautiful form to judge and assess human triumphs and (perhaps more noticable) failings.

PS. I just wanted to note that I think Baudelaire is a wonderful poet but I think what made him revolutionary is just this schism we see between his vision and morality and the Romantics' sense of it. He will write things that are in the voice of "evil" and he will make things beautiful which no one else would dare to (i.e. "The Corpse") which is in line with the Romantics' form of Satanism (one could have just as well named this something else, but if I am not mistaken it is a term used in reference to the first acknowledged piece of the form, Milton's "Paradise Lost"), however he goes farther and he is more radical in his approach...that is why he is so important, he made a new playing field and opened new doors of possibility(for good or evil).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 21 Apr 07 | 07:30PM by NightHalo.

ArkhamMaid:

Thank you for your comments. Although I appreciate and respect your perspective, I could not possibly disagree with you more.

First, with respect to CAS himself.... He was a misanthrope, an adulterer, and, I believe, a law-breaker (manufacture and distribution of alcoholic beverages was against the law during the Prohibition era, from around 1920-1933). He spoke of his "disgust mechanism", and how he felt tempted, at times, to create mayhem across the countryside. He describes himself as an outsider of the most profound sort. Of course, he had his own personal code, or pattern of personal ethics--everyone does, from the ordinary citizen to the serial killer--but that fact hardly makes him or anyone else a pillar of conventional morality.

When one speaks of morality--a term I rather dislike because of its religious taint--it is always wise to follow Nietzsche's advice and ask, "whose morality?" You speak as if "right" and "wrong" were objective, rather than subjective, qualities, whereas even Aristotle was astute enough to observe, in his Nicomachean Ethics, that "Fire burns in both Hellas and Persia, but men's ideas of right and wrong vary from place to place". Recognizing this principle, the malleability and subjectivity of morality, Milton's Satan states, "Evil, be Thou my Good". The fundamental principle behind Romantic Satanism, as I see it, is that right and wrong, good and evil, depend upon who has the power to define them, and to impose their definitions upon others.

I agree with NightHalo that there are fundamental differences between English and Romantic literary Satanism. The former is Miltonic and Promethean; the latter is Gothic and tied quite intimately to Catholicism, its authority and its rites. The French version is a much weaker strain, in my opinion. For instance, there is something distinctly whiny to me about the Baudelairean narrator's supplications to Satan in "Litanies of Satan", a point of view that contrasts dramatically with the grandeur of the Romantics' vision of the subject, which culminates in Byron's Manfred's deathbed renunciation of the authorty of both God and the demonic spirits who have been his familiars.

You also need to be more wary of attributing the points of view expressed in poems to their authors, or otherwise making inferences about their personal views merely from their literary works. There is no evidence that Baudelaire was speaking for himself in any poems he may have written that actively advocate "evil" (whatever that is, and whatever poems they may be), and there is no evidence that CAS explicitly disavowed the perspectives of the "villains" of his pieces--which, in any case, in the tales are often amoral agents who care nothing for humanity and its concerns.

With regard to CAS's versions of Baudelaire, I have argued this point in another forum, and I don't wish to drag the controversy into this one. That said, I feel that, as adaptations, CAS's renderings of Baudelaire are interesting. As translations, however, they are travesties. CAS's archaisms, and his frequent bad habit of choosing exotic and antiquated English words for common French ones, completely distort Baudelaire's tone. CAS's adaptations impose his own style upon Baudelaire, and they transmogrify an urban and urbane, modern (for his time, of course), and often coolly ironic poet into a decadent, slightly overwrought Sir Philip Sidney.

With respect to CAS's not having translated some of Baudelaire's more "repugnant" pieces (interesting choice of word, there!), you seem to overlook the possibility that he may have been working from a bowdlerized edition of the French versions. As you know, Les Fleurs du Mal encountered censorship problems from its inception. In any case, I doubt seriously that CAS felt any moral qualms about tackling those poems, and I really do not believe that Baudelaire's more extreme poems are any "worse", from the perspective of "repugnance", than, say, the tacit and explicit strains of necrophilia that form the undercurrent of such works as the Zothique cycle and The Dead Will Cuckold You.

In summary, I think that you don't really quite grasp what is intended by the term "Romantic Satanism", especially since you seem to view the latter part of the phrase primarily in terms of Judeo-Christian concepts of "good" and "evil". Romantic Satanism is a term of art in literary criticism that has been applied for some time to the works of the English Romantics. Although, as I have stated, I disagree with aspects of it, you might profit from taking a look at Schock's book about Romantic Satanism, in order to learn a bit more about the subject, and what that term really means. In any case, 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.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 22 Apr 07 | 08:46AM by Kyberean.

Nighthalo:

Thank you for your (as usual) astute and informed comments, as well. I apologize for the brevity of my reply, but that is because I have little to add to your observations.

With respect to Baudelaire, his originality lies in taking Poe's approach to beauty and horror, their intermingling, to new and exotic extremes. As you mention, however, there are significant differences between the English and French literary Satanism. You are also quite on the mark in interpreting the Romantics' use of the Satanic figure and concepts as serving to question the established dogma of the day, be it aesthetic or moral.

The quintessential qualities of Romantic Satanism, to me, are Promethean pride, perspectivism, original thought and imagination, a desire to seek the forbidden in search of enlightenment, an insatiable thirst for exploration, and the transgression of limits. Romantic Satanism was the first "movement" of sorts to encompass these qualities, and how anyone could fail to see the relevance of these themes to the work of CAS is quite beyond me.

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

Re. Lost Worlds: Scott has the final word, here, but my understanding is that, aside from publishing brief writings of CAS, himself, it is a strictly a scholarly journal devoted to CAS studies, and does not publish others' fiction. This will give you an idea of the contents: [www.amazon.com].

If you have written fiction that is related thematically or stylistically to CAS's, then you might consider submitting it to this very site, in the "Tributes" section.

Thanks for the suggestion! I've actually been considering submitting to this site, but to tell the truth, I'd like to have my stories published in a paying publication -- or at least something that would get my name out among editors of horror, science fiction, and fantasy. I may, however, submit some of my poetry to this site, so be prepared for some pretty dreadful stuff in the future! ;) At any rate, I do hope that even though LOST WORLDS seems to be a scholarly publication, that it might consider poetry or short fiction, as it seems like the sort of magazine that would be interested in my sort of thing.

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