Re: vance
Posted by:
Knygatin (IP Logged)
Date: 1 November, 2008 03:18PM
sverba Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Didn't mean it as controversial - just if you like
> one you will probably like the other. Not sure why
> it comes off as PI?
>
> steve
I'm sorry, as you can see I edited my post, and added that. I was too hasty, and PI isn't a good comparison. PI came from my frustration with there not being more discussion and treatises on the subject, and the deniers simply being silent and refusing to put forth rational arguments for their cause. Depending on which side they are on, they simply say, "No, I don't like Vance." or "Naw, I don't like horror." But I realize that to make an argument about similarities between the writers, you have to read them both. And if you're not attracted to a writer, you don't read him, and therefore can't make a thought out argument. For example, I never reflect over the connection between Poe and Smith/Lovecraft, because I don't read Poe.
Jojo Lapin X Wrote:
----------------------------------------------------
> but how is Smith "spiritual"? In
> my 35 or so years of studying Smith the idea has
> never once occurred to me.
Not even once in 35 years?! That's strange. Well, I have read him for 20 years, and have had this impression all the time. It's good that we can have different opinions. That makes the discussion all the more interesting!
Here are my ideas. It's difficult to capture in words:
"Spiritual" may have different meanings I guess. I don't mean "religious", or one who "preaches". I mean spiritual in a more ingrained natural way. I mean a person who is not scientific in his approach and rationally analyses everything he sees and from that makes conscious self-aware calculated decisions. I mean a person who has a highly elevated mind of great sensitivty, who acts instinctively on deeper subconscious sources of wisdom. A person who is very fine-tuned to life's highest composition values and ecstatically appreciates the subtlest shades. Sees how everything connects. Who understands what the birds sing, and what the mystic patterns in the lichens actually mean in essence. A highly cultivated soul. Whose values are non-materialistic. In touch with his deepest creative core, instead of being hampered blind by layers upon layers of irrational emotional dross. A person, when you meet him, does not rush on in an awkward way, or is judgmental, moralizes, or jokes insensitively, but sees you in full and is well-mannered and balanced, and therefore makes you feel calm in his company rather than ill at ease. These are not qualities you get by a going to a university. It is something you are either born with, taught in very early years, or else will have to spend your entire life trying to attain.
That is a more general description of a possible way of being "spiritual", which I at least partly associate with Smith. Further, and specifically for Smith, his interest subject matter reveal his nature. Smith is the Star Treader. His soul jumps from star to star, from world to world. There is ethereal or astral travel in his tales. Incarnation is a frequent subject. Ghosts. Vampires. All part of the spiritual realm.
Compare to Lovecraft, who has a very scientific materialistic approach. Well aware of what, and why, he is doing. A true intellectual mind, as shown in his letters. While Smith is more of an artist's artist, who best expresses himself and his mind directly through creativity and art. (Lovecraft naturally also has a deeper instinctive, "spiritual", side, even if it was not in the forefront of his personality. Otherwise there would be no life to his tales.)
Life can't be simplified like this either. Of course there is more to it. And all persons are complex compositions of many parts. So I also fully agree about Smith as the intellectually sharp wry observer.
(Sorry I drifted away from Vance here. Too much to handle at once.)