Re some of the previous thread - I can assure you dear friends that, whereas Clark might occasionally express pique at the "unlettered masses", he was far closer to Edwin Markham's "Man with a Hoe", in his republicanism. You must recall where the status of patriotism was in the early century, and his father had moved to the "colonies" - He did not use arcane and obscure language to deliberately exclude readers, but, first because the word chosen was the right word, and secondly, when he thought of it all, to give his readers the opportunity to elevate themselves - I have often used a variation of a phrase which he and I developed in conversatin, to wit: "If something is passing over your head, stand up that it may encounter you" - my variation in class, lecutre, and public forum is "if what I say is over your head, stand up! - that is, effort on the reader/listener's part will be rewarded -

This point of discussion came up when joking about Aristophanes play wherein Socrates, being informed that a rival philosopher has expounded a new theory remarks: "A bird flew over and dropped upon him, and he mistook it for a thought!" Which led on to a discussion of the general aridity of literary education - in reflecting on those days as compared with these, I confess that the standards we found so lacking then by comparison appear to be an Elysian field of creativity and inspiration.

It seems to me that at any point in time we have writers using language more typical of their predecessors, writers following the mainstream of the day, and writers creating the prosody and poesy of the immediate future. In short, a bell curve. Lovecraft and CAS were at one tail of that curve. I think mass media tends to contract the tails of that bell curve. We increasingly see only the present.

There are moods and aura captured by CAS and HPL that are not easy to duplicate with modern phrasings. In fact, look at the difference in feel between CAS and HPL versus Robert E Howard, who tended to somewhat more everyday language. Howard's prose moved the narrative along. CAS and HPL prose tended to elicit an 'altered state" in the reader first. You'll see a lot more poetic devices in the latter. I suspect you'd find a lot more phrases with an iambic feel.

Really for what they were trying to evoke, I can't see how CAS or HPL could have done otherwise. As much as I enjoy Anne Rice and Stephen King and Clive Barker, modern prose can't produce those effects because it wants to replicate everyday speech. In fact, I recall more CAS/HPL mood from passages in William Burroughs now that I think of it - so you either have to go back to older styles or move forward to completely new styles to evoke the truly alien I suspect.



Steve

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The following is just an addendum to the thoughts
> expressed in my (off topic) post to the "Re: Henry
> S. Whitehead-personal life" thread. They are
> merely my personal thoughts--always a danger for
> me to express in this forum, I realize, lol!-- but
> I hope that their relevance to the work of CAS is
> evident.
>
>
>
> To hear the linguistic descriptivists speak, one
> would think that 20th-and 21st-Century changes in
> language usage, such as acceptance of split
> infinitives--which are driven mostly by ignorance,
> thoughtlessness, or outright semi-literacy--were
> comparable to those of the Elizabethan period. It
> makes me laugh, albeit a bit sadly.
>
> It is also amusing to hear descriptivists hold
> forth about the "evolution of language", and its
> necessity. Descriptivists complain of "outmoded"
> or "outdated" forms of expression. To me, it is
> highly questionable to claim that, merely because
> a word or a linguistic form has fallen out of use
> or fashion, that fact should necessarily consign
> it forever to oblivion. After all, if clothing
> fashions can make "comebacks", then why not
> certain words or rules of usage? If, as
> descriptivists tend to claim, language is
> ever-dynamic and evolving, then it seems that the
> revival of an older word or usage is as fair an
> embodiment of this principle as the idea of
> constant linguistic novelty.
>
> I should add that I do not necessarily accept the
> "dynamic evolution" metaphor for language
> development. It amuses me, though, that many
> descriptivists seem to share the widespread
> misunderstanding and misuse of the word evolution,
> which many today mistake for "progress", or for
> other purely forward- or linear-thinking mental
> models. To use a biological analogy: The finch's
> beak both lengthens and shortens; it does not
> simply continue to grow longer and longer.
> Evolution, including the evolution of language (if
> one accepts that idea), can move in many
> directions, and yet still constitute evolution per
> se.

I just glanced at the first page of this thread. Whewww. I am glad that ED is not the kind of place in which snarkiness proceeds as it does in Callaghan & maybe others.

But if anyone wants to talk about the "evolution of language," such a one should look into the writings of Owen Barfield, such as Poetic Diction, Speaker's Meaning[i], and [i]Saving the Appearances. I'm not proposing that those of us present now do so -- but leaving this message as a suggestion for people who might discover this thread someday and want to do something with it.

Kyberean sounds like a pretty sensible writer from this one message.

I only joined last year, but I used to glance at this forum from time to time in the last decade or so. Kyberean struck me as too insistent on glorifying CAS and depicting him in a highly specific way, and he participated in a few arguments that went on for far too long (in my opinion anyway), but otherwise he was quite knowledgeable, insightful, and always had something interesting to share. He delivered a nice critical kick against modern pomposity, but I can't say much more as someone who only occasionally, and invisibly, visited this place.

Edit: Ah, for some reason I thought this was the generic literature/universe thread! I have nothing to contribute to the subject of this thread, but I'm eager to read more!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 17 Apr 21 | 08:54PM by Hespire.

Hespire, another Barfield book you could try is his History in English Words

Many years ago I taught creative writing one semester and required that book. I thought that, if the students are going to concern themselves with words, here was a book to prompt some good thinking about words. I don't really remember how the book went over with the students -- certainly I don't remember seeing light bulbs material over their heads and flash into brightness, but nor do I remember a mutiny...

I think Barfield is a better author to read than probably the various books about language that are supposed to be amusing and show what quaint folk earlier writers of English were.