Some readers may find metaphorical references in some of these works? The again, maybe this is only the review critics. Either way, both writers seem to be describing worlds and dimensions in which humans are powerless, comparatively speaking. Aliens, mutants, gods and other beings seem all poerful by comparison. What do other readers think about this?......


Looking forward to your replies!


From Julian (Mr Julian L Hawksworth)


e-mail: julianuk@37.com

It's a common theme in literature (and life) through out the ages, that is, an individuals alienation from his\her peers\family\society\culture\etc. Some go through it as a 'phase' for others a life long belief. You don't need to be 'religious' to have come away frustrated after butting heads against government or big business bureaucrats and thinking that your life is ruled by powers beyond your control.

The way one expresses this alienations is through the lens of ones own place and time as well as interests and proclivities whether it be an art (writing, painting, etc) and/or actions, the young and not so young boozy car hoons.

For CAS and Lovecraft they chose the written word and inspiration from their preferred genre.

In my view, Lovecraft was expressing in part his contempt for anthropocentrism and what he considered to be the fatuities of man's religions and superstitions. The Old Ones represent material creatures (albeit unusual ones, to say the least) whose god-like attributes inspire fear and worship in their credulous and awe-stricken human subjects. On the other hand, despite his philosophy of mechanistic materialism, Lovecraft also felt a profound longing to escape the strictures of ordinary time and space. This topic arises more than once in his correspondence with Ashton Smith, for instance. Lovecraft's cosmic vistas represent an imaginative escape from such strictures.

Ashton Smith's writings also express this desire for escape from the mundane, but I believe that, being unhampered by the blinders of mechanistic materialism, he felt these longings perhaps even more keenly than did Lovecraft. Although Lovecraft felt alienation in both spheres, he felt alienated primarily in time. Ashton Smith's alienation, on the other hand, was one of both time and space equally. I agree, however, with Ashton Smith that such feelings can never be reduced to mere psychological attributes, and for that reason I doubt that greater social integration on the part of either man into American society would have changed his views and feelings significantly.

Firstly, I would like to thank you readers for responding with such thoughtful and interesting replies to this subject. Obviously, to some extent, both Lovecraft and Clark Ashton Smith allowed their writings to drift between genres. However, is that a bad thing? I think not. When written carefully, such works can indeed be both a pleasure to read and still remain quality works of literature. Further responses to this thread would be much appreciated, readers.......


From Julian (Mr J L Hawksworth)

e-mail: julianuk@37.com

FAO Reader Kevin Shelton:


Whilst staying with this interesting thread of mine, I agree with your suggestion that Clark Ashton Smith used his writings as a form of escapism from the "mundane" as you refer to it. Indeed, in one book I have read that he often longed for escape from the mundane and routine of ordinary life. There is no shame in this. After all, it is a harmless way in which fans can relax. I would be interested in further views from readers of this site, regarding your views of what Clark Ashton Smith and H P Lovecraft are actually describing in their numerous classic works in the fantasy/horror/sci-fi genre. Indeed, Clark Ashton Smith in particular, was able to cross writing genres at will! A real talent which will always be missed.......

From Julian

e-mail: julianuk@37.com

Julian,
I have not had the pleasure of responding to your enquiries
heretofore, but the present thread provoked a response that
may be of value to you. I was Clark's last really close
friend, and was together with him and his wife frequently
during the last 5 years of his life, and had many discussions
lasting until the wee hours of the morn over black bread,
cheese, and wine. I have no sense that Clark's writings
represented an "escape" of any kind. The need to escape
from the "mundane", "harse reality", or unendurable
circumstances and pain, did not occur to Clark insofar as
I can determine. Picture if you will, this extraordinarily
gifted child, sitting on the verge of a deep canyon; the
rapids of a mountain stream distant, wind through the oaks,
a huge virgin moon rising beyond the canyon wall opposite,
and no city lights, no city sounds - and a deepness to the
heavens incaccessible to us today except in the remotest
places - his mind stirred by tales of travel and adventure,
and sensing the black gulf above as a sensate entity (if
you have experienced night in this way - possible to some
extent at a great altitude in an aircraft, you will know
that the darkness seems to pulse with a life of its own).
The worlds of his stories was another place to live - like
owning a condo in Bermuda might be for a New Yorker, only
far more profound and accessible. Clark never regretted nor
resented his circumstances-- much as a Stoic might. Of course
he would have liked to be better known, but whether great
wealth accompanied fame or not was not part of his mental
scenery. Clark simply had numerous places to live within
his mind which he could visit at will, yet fully aware so that
the discipline of his craft never left him. Even the sense
in which he disliked the mechanization and urbanization of
his world never gave him reason to "escape", rather to
satirize -- for he never left his world to participate in
the "real world". He visited from time to time - and hated
it - wherever he was, Clark made that place(as he did
Pacific Grove) into a projection of the cabin in the Sierras,
where he reigned, serene and gracious to the end.

I just read "Dominium in Excelsis", and maybe it captures CAS's attitude. No escape there, only a deeper appreciation and experience of reality.

I am fortunate to live in an area where dark skies are still available. With only a few small annoying electric light sourses that polute the the air, but these can be avoided after a short walk (Gosh, how I hate electric light! It is harsh, cold, and sterile. And as far as I am concerned CAS should be read by candlelight, or by oil lamp if one doesn't mind the smell, nothing else will do). The Milky Way is clearly visible and infinite stars are thronging. Some years ago I used to go out with my small telescope at night (nowadays I have become so damned sensitive to the cold that I stay indoors). During this time I also studied some elementary astronomy; and filled my star atlas with scribbles of distances to several objects, planets, major stars, clusters, and nebulae, which gave a 3-dimensional sense of perspective. The telescope now no longer showed just lightdots on a black background, but I looked into deeps, and felt the masses revolving out there. The stars and nebulae also have visible variations in colour, and glitter like jewelry. The most amazing thing though, was that I didn't feel lonely sitting there; I didn't look out on cold, dead space, but instead it clearly crawled and stirred with life. Like going for a walk in the park.

"Escape" was not the best choice of words for the point I meant to express, but it seems to me that the point is obvious enough, and I do stand by it. As CAS wrote to Lovecraft, "My own standpoint is that there is absolutely no justification for literature unless it serves to release the imagination from the bounds of everyday life". In a similar vein, the "escape" that I have in mind is not merely a mundane escape from hardship, but, far more important, an escape from the strictures of time and space altogether. It may be simply a matter of semantics, but it seems difficult to deny that there is an element of "escapism" inherent in this attitude. It is, however, only an element, and that fact in any case does not vitiate what I consider to be an admirable perspective. Here, following Tolkien, we have an instance of the escape of the prisoner, not of the deserter.

I realize that some might take issue with the term "prisoner" in its mundane sense. It seems to me, however, beyond dispute that CAS felt that way at times; see, for instance, the following passage from a 1937 letter to Robert Barlow:

"Truly, as you suggest, America has killed her finest artists. And when she hasn't killed them, she has driven them into exile as in the cases of Hearn and Bierce. Personally I am goddamned sick of the killing process (I seem to die hard) and have fully and absolutely made up my mind to quit the hell-bedunged and heaven-bespitted country when my present responsibilities are over. I haven't any definite plans, but will probably gravitate toward the orient. Anyway, I shall remove myself from Auburn, California and the USA, even if I have to stow away on a tramp steamer. [...]Writing is hard for me, since circumstances here are dolorous and terrible. Improvement in my father's condition is more than unlikely, and I am more isolated than ever. Also, I seem to have what psychologists call a 'disgust mechanism' to contend with: a disgust at the ineffable stupidity of editors and readers think that some of my best recent work is in sculpture: and there I find myself confronted with another blank wall of stupidity. Oh well and oh hell: some one will make a 'discovery' when I am safely dead or incarcerated in the bughouse or living with a yellow gal ln Cambodia".

No doubt, this wasn't the governing mood throughout CAS's lifetime. It would, however, be equally inaccurate, I think, to suggest that he was always a paradigm of emotional equilibrium, and that imaginative release from his often-difficult circumstances did not serve, at least in part, as a "safety-valve" in his "disgust mechanism" from time to time.

FAO: Dr. W. C. Farmer

Sir, I apologise for my error which you identified regarding Clark Ashton Smith. As a relatively new reader of his works, I clearly have much to learn! Anyway, I certainly find the fantasy worlds which he describes to be both an excellent read and escapist. Then again, you must admit, some of the content in your reply is highly escapist in the way you explain Clark Ashton Smith's creative mind! Indeed, I hold the view that very few writers have the necessary state of mind in which to create such dark fantasy worlds and writings. By the way, I read somewhere that he actually made some sculptures of his fantastic creations. I was wondering if you had some thoughts regarding these objects also? Further replies to this thread are always gladly received.

Many Thanks

Julian

e-mail: julianuk@37.com

Mr. Hawsworth,

To this topic, I would like to propose the following idea as speculation.
(Without risking offending anyone with the precipitation of my personal beliefs on this subject)
The Universe appears to us in such a manifestation that it hints of the things beyond it. That which is phenomenal suggests the noumenal by its basic symbolic nature. In this age of free thought, one can step aside the established order of philosophy and religion, and ask 'what is the noumenal?' with a clear and open mind.
We, as part of the Universe, must at some time imagine, or intuitively sense larger forces behind nature, behind physics, behind life itself. Writers with keen insight, such as C.A.Smith and Lovecraft may to have done this very thing.
It has been postulated by a few scholars of myth and religion that the worlds and beings which inhabit the writings of these authors are indeed metaphors for such, and that their acclaim comes from the reader's instinctual recognition of them.
We live in an age where matter has been elevated to a monumental degree (science & technology). From this perspective, metaphors for Universal forces could likely be manifested in a story as things that are able to be seen, felt, or examined in a physical way. The gods and higher dimensions are apprehended personally by the characters in some of Smith and Lovecraft's stories, and this provides a mystical quest into certain unknowns, which science is slow (if even interested) in delivering.
An excellent example of this in particular is 'At the Mountains of Madness'.
In closing, the recurring points which Smith and Lovecraft make with their stories (whether intentional or unconscious) are the exposure of a larger reality in the midst of a very materialistic culture, a hint at spirituality, and a mockery of man's excessive self-adoration. Such things are highly needed in these times, and this I think, is why Smith and Lovecraft's work continues to thrive and inspire so many others.

~Vhoorl

It is with mild trepidation that I make myself known. The Eldritch Forum is indeed a fine agora for discussion. I am humbled by the dialectics of fine individuals in here. Who am I, a newly inducted neophyte, to even dare drop a pebble into this pool. I have limited exposure to H.P.Lovecraft and next to no exposure to CAS. What I do have, however, is an appreciation and admiration for both authors/artists. A dear frind of mine introduced me to the world of CAS. That same friend also led me to the Eldritch Forums. So here I am.

Now to actually keep to the topic started by Julian Hawskworth. A part of me would like to think that CAS and HPL were both describing worlds which exist just beyond our grasp of the peripheral. A world, that if you were to peel away the layers of our reality, emerges from behind that translucent veil of experience that dictates perception. A world that, due to the extraordinary talents of the two, they are able to visit and record. Are they both escaping to this world? Or have they become reluctant ambassadors. For who would willingly, time after time, visit those worlds? Perhaps the truthseekers. Or perhaps it is because that after they make their fantastic voyages across the threshold to those worlds, they are able to come back to share that world with us. Again, due to my limited understanding, I may be grossly mistaken but these are just the thoughts of a neophyte.

May the teachers now teach and the students pause to consider.

Gentlemen, I probably should have responded to this thread long ago, but today it came up on top, so here we are.
I am always glad to share my memories of Clark with you all -- but
I want to assure you that what stimulates you or inspires your curiosity about the man and his work can never be in any sense
"wrong." Clark understood (as indeed few do), that the essence of the act of creation is that it is never finished (observe current activity at Mt.St. Helens). As any fine poem, for example, may inspire imitators, or become part of the mental arsenal of an original creation in some latter day writer or composer, so Ashton's work is moving among us all -- that may someday translate into concepts and perspectives beyond our capacity to imagine -- a phenomenon Clark would applaud. I knew him in his last years when he had dismissed his earlier demons; some he had exorcised,with some he had made a treaty of non-aggression, most he had recognized for the empty sound and fury they were and laughed them out of existence. There are those musicians who insist on playing Bach or Chopin as "purely" as possible -- wanting to hear what the composer heard. There may be some merit in that approach, Bach or Chopin, however, would be quite amazed and delighted to hear themselves imitated and expanded upon by rock groups, movies, commericials, and serious composers building on what they inspired - in short, there is really no "wrong" way to play them, as there is no wrong way to read CAS - and if you find something there that others have not seen, it does not mean that Clark intended it or saw it, but that art itself is always greater than the artist - which is why an older generation referred quite seriously to the existence of a "muse" -
the children of an idea, even as our own children, often travel in directions noone could have foreseen - I think it is quite wonderful
and I encourage you all -- if you see something in Clark's work, or think you do, then it is there - whether he consciously intended it or not is quite irrelevant.

What of the concept, then, of intertextuality, Dr. F?

Ciao!

Phillip