I am re-reading Fungi From Yuggoth for the first time in over 20 years. I have never read a text that so clearly and ruthlessly uninhibited tears down the mundane and exposes the cosmic. So far my favorite sonnet is Star-Winds.

I have also read Poe's "The Man of the Crowd". Lovecraft calls this "cosmic". For the first time I don't agree with Loveacraft's reasoning. Cosmic? What does he mean? It doesn't appear cosmic to me. I suppose it depends on how you define cosmic, and what it includes. He must mean cosmic in some subtle way? Or is everything cosmic that threatens man beyond his control? Are ghost stories cosmic?
To me "The Man of the Crowd" is about a man who fears to be alone, because he will then be haunted by demons of guilt for his terrible crimes, and perhaps by the ghosts of his victims.

I think Lovecraft, and others, spreads the word "cosmic" around the place a little bit too thinly... to my mind, he is often guilty of seeing the cosmic everywhere in supernatural fiction, but really he is only expressing his own ideology rather than anything inherently cosmic in the texts. I've not done a word count of the number of times "cosmic" appears in 'Supernatural Horror...' but I'm willing to bet that he utters it more times than there are he can actually give examples of cosmic tales. Indeed, he has to include First and Last Men just to beef up the cosmic quota, which, while highly cosmic, is hardly "supernatural horror." And to give one example, by including something as clodhopping as Dracula, an almost anti-cosmic horror novel IMO, he undoes much of his cosmic claims for supernatural horror. It's all subjective, I know, but to my mind HP is sometimes guilty of being a little too easily persuaded by his own rhetoric and is sometimes guilty of not pushing his thinking.

Note: this is not to say that Lovecraft isn't himself a cosmic author. I think 'Supernatural Horror...,' while being an excellent history of the genre, is predominately a manifesto for his own philosophy and writing rather than a great work of critical thinking on horror fiction.

The English Assassin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've not done a word count of the number of
> times "cosmic" appears in 'Supernatural Horror...'

30 times.


> Indeed, he has to include First
> and Last Men just to beef up the cosmic quota,
> which, while highly cosmic, is hardly
> "supernatural horror."

No, he doesn't. Not in Supernatural Horror in Literature.

The English Assassin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think Lovecraft, and others, spreads the word
> "cosmic" around the place a little bit too
> thinly... to my mind, he is often guilty of seeing
> the cosmic everywhere in supernatural fiction, but
> really he is only expressing his own ideology
> rather than anything inherently cosmic in the
> texts. I've not done a word count of the number of
> times "cosmic" appears in 'Supernatural Horror...'
> but I'm willing to bet that he utters it more
> times than there are he can actually give examples
> of cosmic tales. Indeed, he has to include First
> and Last Men just to beef up the cosmic quota,
> which, while highly cosmic, is hardly
> "supernatural horror." And to give one example, by
> including something as clodhopping as Dracula, an
> almost anti-cosmic horror novel IMO, he undoes
> much of his cosmic claims for supernatural horror.
> It's all subjective, I know, but to my mind HP is
> sometimes guilty of being a little too easily
> persuaded by his own rhetoric and is sometimes
> guilty of not pushing his thinking.
>
> Note: this is not to say that Lovecraft isn't
> himself a cosmic author. I think 'Supernatural
> Horror...,' while being an excellent history of
> the genre, is predominately a manifesto for his
> own philosophy and writing rather than a great
> work of critical thinking on horror fiction.


There are some points on which I agree with you here, and others on which I don't. I do think HPL overindulged in use of the word, at times using it in a rhetorical (or at least nearly rhetorical) fashion; Joshi points this out in his introduction to the annotated edition of the essay. Even M. R. James criticized this: "He uses the word cosmic about 24 times" (letter to Nicholas Llewelyn Davies, 12 January 1928; printed in Ghosts and Scholars 8, cited in S. T. Joshi, H. P. Lovecraft: A Life, p. 424), though he did have some slightly kinder things to say as well. And, as Martinus has pointed out, he never mentions Stapledon's novel in SHiL, though he does in his letters and (if memory serves) an essay or two.

His use of it with Poe's tale is, I think, at least somewhat defensible, as we do not know what the man's secret (and his fear) is; but the evident terror, which drives him to continual movement, makes it likely it is indeed a most unusual and very powerful one; and I also think -- though this is mere personal opinion -- he ties it to the bit he quotes from this tale in "The Horror at Red Hook" about "Poe's German authority" and the "er lasst sich nicht lesen"; which, to Lovecraft, seems to conjure up something quite outside the realm of the natural, and even of language itself... an idea he obviously found quite powerful as a stimulant to his imagination. (Poe, on the other hand, seems very much to have thought of the piece as a character study, and the line in German was more a comment on the unintelligibility of some of the German metaphysicians than anything else.)

As for the inclusion of Dracula... this is one of those instances when one needs to read Lovecraft very carefully, paying close attention to his choice of words: "But best of all [of Stoker's works] is the famous Dracula, which has become almost the standard modern exploitation of the frightful vampire myth" (emphasis added). For Lovecraft, that is quite a qualified form of praise, and nowhere in his discussion does he apply any of his usual terms of approbation, though he needs must accede its impact on the field, as he goes on to do, citing the "elements" which have "justly assigned" the novel a permanent place in English letters". It would seem that here he is addressing specifics in the novel, rather than the novel as a whole; and there are some powerful passages in the novel, despite various flaws. And indeed, in his letters, he goes much more with his own opinion of the work, which is considerably less enthusiastic.

One can see this sort of separation between his own personal views on some of the pieces and the general critical opinion of the period (and, in many cases, since) in other instances, such as his high praise of Holmes' Elsie Venner, which he gives quiet but sincere praise, noting its "admirable restraint" and powerful atmosphere; something he reiterates in his letters to Barlow, while cautiously addressing whether or not it was one of the great classics of the field:

"About "Elsie Venner" -- it has a subtly haunting power, though I'm not sure whether the horror element is concentrated enough to make it a major weird classic. Some, of course, might consider it all the greater on that account. It certanily has atmosphere. I haven't read it in years, but can still recall the malign aura that hangs about the great hill against which the town is built."

-- O Fortunate Floridian, p. 187

I would say that, to some degree, it is indeed an exposition of his own growing aesthetic of the weird tale, but it is balanced by deference to general critical opinion and attempts (at least) at a more objective assessment in many cases; and, as noted above, should be read with care in discerning which is which....

Martinus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The English Assassin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----

> 30 times.

Cheers. I hope you counted by hand! :)


> No, he doesn't. Not in Supernatural Horror in
> Literature.


Oh does he not... My mistake... Must have read it elsewhere then... Does he not mention it in any of his essays, then? I need to did my books out of storage ASAP! But thanks for putting me straight on this... Memory is a tricky thing!

jdworth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The English Assassin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I think Lovecraft, and others, spreads the word
> > "cosmic" around the place a little bit too
> > thinly... to my mind, he is often guilty of
> seeing
> > the cosmic everywhere in supernatural fiction,
> but
> > really he is only expressing his own ideology
> > rather than anything inherently cosmic in the
> > texts. I've not done a word count of the number
> of
> > times "cosmic" appears in 'Supernatural
> Horror...'
> > but I'm willing to bet that he utters it more
> > times than there are he can actually give
> examples
> > of cosmic tales. Indeed, he has to include
> First
> > and Last Men just to beef up the cosmic quota,
> > which, while highly cosmic, is hardly
> > "supernatural horror." And to give one example,
> by
> > including something as clodhopping as Dracula,
> an
> > almost anti-cosmic horror novel IMO, he undoes
> > much of his cosmic claims for supernatural
> horror.
> > It's all subjective, I know, but to my mind HP
> is
> > sometimes guilty of being a little too easily
> > persuaded by his own rhetoric and is sometimes
> > guilty of not pushing his thinking.
> >
> > Note: this is not to say that Lovecraft isn't
> > himself a cosmic author. I think 'Supernatural
> > Horror...,' while being an excellent history of
> > the genre, is predominately a manifesto for his
> > own philosophy and writing rather than a great
> > work of critical thinking on horror fiction.
>
>
> There are some points on which I agree with you
> here, and others on which I don't. I do think HPL
> overindulged in use of the word, at times using it
> in a rhetorical (or at least nearly rhetorical)
> fashion; Joshi points this out in his introduction
> to the annotated edition of the essay. Even M. R.
> James criticized this: "He uses the word cosmic
> about 24 times" (letter to Nicholas Llewelyn
> Davies, 12 January 1928; printed in Ghosts and
> Scholars 8, cited in S. T. Joshi, H. P. Lovecraft:
> A Life, p. 424), though he did have some slightly
> kinder things to say as well. And, as Martinus has
> pointed out, he never mentions Stapledon's novel
> in SHiL, though he does in his letters and (if
> memory serves) an essay or two.

Ah, letters you say! I do think SHiL is a rhetorical piece and that HP is quite a rhetorical writer in general... Even in his fiction... (and I'm not saying that this is a bad thing)

> I would say that, to some degree, it is indeed an
> exposition of his own growing aesthetic of the
> weird tale, but it is balanced by deference to
> general critical opinion and attempts (at least)
> at a more objective assessment in many cases; and,
> as noted above, should be read with care in
> discerning which is which....

Yes, I'd agree... It's a hybrid... Possibly an accidental one... It's been a long time since I've read it, but I think in terms of his treatment of individual writers and their work it manages to straddle the personal and the critical quite well, but in its opening I believe that he is basically describing his own relationship with supernatural horror and the ethos of his own tales rather than any widespread philosophy or perspective in supernatural fiction... I suppose that with the all powerful influence of Lovecraft upon the horror genre in general then it could be argued that his cosmic explanation is probably truer today than it was then...

Of course, both a cosmic and a non-cosmic explanation can be true, but I think as an objective essay it would have been better served if more that a cosmic definition of supernatural was discussed in detail. But saying that, I think even in tales that are less than cosmic, it's more than fair for a reader to find something in them that inspires or supports their cosmic perspective, so I wouldn't actively disagree with Lovecraft either... I just think his personal bias has to be acknowledged.

The English Assassin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Martinus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The English Assassin Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
>
> > 30 times.
>
> Cheers. I hope you counted by hand! :)
>

No, I cheated, using the online text at the H. P. Lovecraft Archive.

> > No, he doesn't. Not in Supernatural Horror in
> > Literature.
>
>
> Oh does he not... My mistake... Must have read it
> elsewhere then... Does he not mention it in any of
> his essays, then? I need to did my books out of
> storage ASAP! But thanks for putting me straight
> on this... Memory is a tricky thing!

IIRC, it is mentioned in "Some Notes on Interplanetary Fiction", and I think I've seen it in at least one letter.

The English Assassin Wrote:
> Ah, letters you say! I do think SHiL is a
> rhetorical piece and that HP is quite a rhetorical
> writer in general... Even in his fiction... (and
> I'm not saying that this is a bad thing)

I would agree with that; Lovecraft was heavily influenced by the oral traditions of writing, so he used numerous rhetorical effects throughout his work in whatever form. This can easily be seen by reading any of his stories, essays, or poems (and to no small degree his letters) aloud; they all tend to lend themselves to this very well.

As for his mention of Last and First Men... yes, he did mention it in at least one essay: "Some Notes on Interplanetary Fiction" (1934): "There are, without doubt, great possibilities in the serious exploitation of the astronomical tale; as a few semi-classics like "The War of the Worlds", "The Last and First Men", "Station X", "The Red Brain", and Clark Ashton Smith's best work proves" (Collected Essays 2: 182).


> Yes, I'd agree... It's a hybrid... Possibly an
> accidental one... It's been a long time since I've
> read it, but I think in terms of his treatment of
> individual writers and their work it manages to
> straddle the personal and the critical quite well,
> but in its opening I believe that he is basically
> describing his own relationship with supernatural
> horror and the ethos of his own tales rather than
> any widespread philosophy or perspective in
> supernatural fiction...

I think that's a fair assessment. I go back to the essay periodically, and over time my own views of it have changed quite a bit; largely due to my growing knowledge of HPL's varying approach to things at different periods in his life, and also to my own readings of many of the items mentioned (I hope within the next year or two to have read them all, save for such things as The Magus, or related items). For instance, he first really began to formulate this idea of the weird tale in a coherent form around the time he wrote "The Unnamable", and it was taking much firmer shape by the period he wrote "Pickman's Model" -- hence his growing emphasis on the necessity for realistic handling of such effects.

And, as you say, there are sections of the essay which are very much devoted to expressing his own theory of the weird tale -- which, however, was not quite so far from the field at the time of its writing; in fact, it is partly through his reading in preparation for the essay that he came to evolve this view of the field. So, while the "cosmic" aspect -- as Lovecraft explains his use of the term here -- does not suit much of the earlier material particularly well (though there are moments even in such things as Melmoth where I would argue it does), with that which was contemporary or in the recent past, say from the 1880s on, this does seem to have been a growing sensibility in the field, even though largely unconscious with many. (Again, though, Bierce had an appreciation for such, as his comments on both Sterling's and Smith's cosmic poetry show; and certainly some aspects of Hodgson's work, as well as various others, seem to be groping toward something very similar.) I think, in the end, it was this historical development which became the overall thrust of the piece.

jdworth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> His use of it with Poe's tale is, I think, at
> least somewhat defensible, as we do not know what
> the man's secret (and his fear) is; but the
> evident terror, which drives him to continual
> movement, makes it likely it is indeed a most
> unusual and very powerful one; ...
> the "er lasst sich nicht lesen"; which, to
> Lovecraft, seems to conjure up something quite
> outside the realm of the natural, and even of
> language itself... .
> (Poe, on the other hand, seems very much to have
> thought of the piece as a character study, and the
> line in German was more a comment on the
> unintelligibility of some of the German
> metaphysicians than anything else.)

Other tales by Poe deal with the pain and madness overcoming persons guilty of awful crimes. I think the line "er lasst sich nicht lesen" may refer to the circumstance that persons must carry their existential pains on their own, alone; that no words may adequately grasp the inner experience so that it can be transfered outside of the person and shared with another human being.

Poe's vision may perhaps be said to be cosmic in a general sense. In the sense that he sees man as a "flyspeck" (to use Lovecraft's word), or as completely helpless to control his life against overall circumstances.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jdworth Wrote:
> > Other tales by Poe deal with the pain and madness
> overcoming persons guilty of awful crimes. I think
> the line "er lasst sich nicht lesen" may refer to
> the circumstance that persons must carry their
> existential pains on their own, alone; that no
> words may adequately grasp the inner experience so
> that it can be transfered outside of the person
> and shared with another human being.

You may well be right on this, and certainly such a reading has great appeal; but in my referencing to Lovecraft's reading, I am going on the fact that this seems to be an idea which fascinated him throughout much of his career, and part of the reason he "stretched" the language so in his own work. With Poe, I am likewise basing it on various other writings of his, where he pokes fun at the metaphysicians, uses them as a jumping-off point for extreme exaggeration which often walks the borderline between genuine horror and the ludicrous, and in general had a strong disrespect for that branch of philosophical writing. (Not that he didn't recognize the value of examining such questions; he simply felt that they went of chasing rabbits....)

>
> Poe's vision may perhaps be said to be cosmic in a
> general sense. In the sense that he sees man as a
> "flyspeck" (to use Lovecraft's word), or as
> completely helpless to control his life against
> overall circumstances.

Again, there is truth to this, too; though (also again), Lovecraft himself eventually came to "suspect" -- to use his phrasing -- the cosmicism of Poe, Machen, James, and many of the others....

This post is only slightly related to cosmicism. Or it may be more so. I don't know. It's still about the reach of the human mind.

While stomping away to the passionate music of Hank Williams (This God-gifted singer-song-writer rising from a poor hillbilly background, whom I recently discovered after overcoming childish prejudice against country-music. I also must admit that I have a fondness for Southern drawl.), I got to wondering about the nature of music in a larger perspective. Is the clear-cut measured rythms of very memorable music created by man limited in meaning to the small enclosure of the specific species human mind and emotional setup? Or do these measured rythms have universal force? Would they affect attention from other intelligent life, or only slip by as meaningless trails of chaotic tones?

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This post is only slightly related to cosmicism.
> Or it may be more so. I don't know. It's still
> about the reach of the human mind.
>
> While stomping away to the passionate music of
> Hank Williams (This God-gifted singer-song-writer
> rising from a poor hillbilly background, whom I
> recently discovered after overcoming childish
> prejudice against country-music. I also must admit
> that I have a fondness for Southern drawl.), I got
> to wondering about the nature of music in a larger
> perspective. Is the clear-cut measured rythms of
> very memorable music created by man limited in
> meaning to the small enclosure of the specific
> species human mind and emotional setup? Or do
> these measured rythms have universal force? Would
> they affect attention from other intelligent life,
> or only slip by as meaningless trails of chaotic
> tones?


I believe there has been some research on this, but can't recall anything distinctly of that nature. However, going from personal experience, I'd say it depends, both on the animal and the particular piece of music involved. For example, I've had both dogs and cats who responded to certain pieces, but were (apparently at least) completely oblivious to others; while other cats I've had seemed to not notice any at all. (One rather amusing tidbit of information on this; I had one cat -- named Nicholas Scratch, no less, as the name fit his personality perfectly -- who was very responsive to one particular piece of music; namely, the Giorgio Moroder theme to Paul Schrader's Cat People. Anytime that played, he practically sat at attention between the speakers, his tail twitching in the same manner as when he was watching potential prey.)

jdworth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I had one cat -- named Nicholas Scratch, no less, as
> the name fit his personality perfectly -- who was
> very responsive to one particular piece of music;
> namely, the Giorgio Moroder theme to Paul
> Schrader's Cat People. Anytime that played, he
> practically sat at attention between the speakers,
> his tail twitching in the same manner as when he
> was watching potential prey.)

And to Cat People, with its subject matter! Cats are mysterious. One wonders how far their thoughts go. They certainly have brains large enough to have a rather high degree of intelligence. And all mammals share more or less the same emotional setup regarding joy, pain, and caring for relations. Human music may perhaps affect other mammals in a very basic way; soft harmonious music being tolerated, while aggressive harsh music strains their nerves. With your cat, the reaction seems more nuanced and specific though.

Dolphins and whales have complex sound patterns. Maybe they sometimes sing for pleasure. But for us their sounds don't make any sense.

I believe scientist have also made experiments with plants. They wither when placed near speakers playing harsh music. Although volume is perhaps the more important factor.

I wonder what meaning human music could have for intelligent life on another planet with different physics and geological setup. As a human being one takes the rythms and melodies for granted, feeling as if they are universally valid, sometimes even almost of Divine beauty; But really, on a cosmic level they may be only fly-speks or no better than clods of dirt.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 24 Jan 12 | 05:52PM by Knygatin.

The same discussion could go for paintings, and sculpture.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This post is only slightly related to cosmicism.
> Or it may be more so. I don't know. It's still
> about the reach of the human mind.
>
> While stomping away to the passionate music of
> Hank Williams (This God-gifted singer-song-writer
> rising from a poor hillbilly background, whom I
> recently discovered after overcoming childish
> prejudice against country-music. I also must admit
> that I have a fondness for Southern drawl.), I got
> to wondering about the nature of music in a larger
> perspective. Is the clear-cut measured rythms of
> very memorable music created by man limited in
> meaning to the small enclosure of the specific
> species human mind and emotional setup? Or do
> these measured rythms have universal force? Would
> they affect attention from other intelligent life,
> or only slip by as meaningless trails of chaotic
> tones?
While I am myself a Classical musician, I grew up in the South in the 30's where the best entertainment was a travelling Revival - with this newfound interest, may I suggest using google to see if there are any "Old Harp" singing groups that meet with some regularity in your area. - The Sacred Harp singing method mightily influenced the "hillbilly" traditions - it is raw and primitive and wonderful - if you can find one, go, and if possible, participate - my bet is you would love it.

calonlan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While I am myself a Classical musician, I grew up in the South in the 30's

I am of a younger generation born in the 60's, who grew up with 70's "hippie" rock. But I appreciate great music in most categories, and like exploring Classical, 30's swing jazz, avantgarde, even Norwegian nihilistic black metal (can't be listened to in the summer though. Only suitable for midwinter, when it's freezing cold and daily living is harsh and straining, and the pee turns to ice in midair outside the cabin.) Different kinds of music stir different parts of the mentality; love, melancholy, ethereality, freed imagination, resoluteness, viking berserk aggression. For example, 30's swing is extremely joyful, and when listening to it, my legs can't help but start dancing the jig like they did in those good old days. It's very humorous!

> The Sacred Harp - it is raw and
> primitive and wonderful - if you can find one, go,
> and if possible, participate - my bet is you would
> love it.

Thanks for the tip. This choir might have worked neat for me, if I was on a Christian mission, and better able to subordinate my individuality into the group herd mentality. But being the pagan rebel I am, they would have rejected me before I had even time to sit down. I attempted choir singing in my fumbling youth, and I can say, it was not a success!



Now about Hank Williams... what a genius!

Isn't this great poetry?

"Goodbye Joe, me gotta go, me oh my oh
Me gotta go pole the pirogue down the bayou
My Yvonne, the sweetest one, me oh my oh
Son of a gun, we'll have good fun on the bayou

Jambalaya and a crawfish pie and file' gumbo
'Cause tonight I’m gonna see my ma cher amio
Pick guitar, fill fruit jar and be gay-o
Son of a gun, we’ll have big fun on the bayou

Thibodeaux, Fontainenot, the place is buzzin’
Kinfolk come to see Yvonne by the dozen
Dress in style and go hog wild, me oh my oh
Son of a gun, we’ll have big fun on the bayou..."


The Residents performed an atmospheric primitive slow version of Jambalaya, reeking of the warm South backwaters. Mixing in lyrics from other Hank songs, where he "went to meet his darling by the singing waterfall".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0zKzc7Evxc

The Residents is an avantgarde band, who tend to twist and bend the borders of conventional reality, sometimes causing nightmarish soundscapes that border on insanity. They may perhaps be said to be akin to the cosmic perspective.