One assumes the folk on this list have read all the CAS tales and all the HPL tales so now everyone should go out and read Olaf Stapledon's STAR MAKER and then we can talk about cosmic viewpoints.

JBP

I am afraid I am still struggling with LAST AND FIRST MEN. I aim to finish it in my lifetime.

I am in the same fix as JoJo Lapin X, although I did recently re-read, and very much enjoyed, Stapledon's "Nietzschean" novels, Odd John and Sirius.

Some suggestions for readings from other authors who display cosmic perspectives, to one degree or the other:

--Marcus Aurelius

--John Milton (Satan's voyage through outer space in Book IX of Paradise Lost)

--Edward Young (Night Thoughts; "Night the Ninth")

--William Blake (in the "epics")

--George Sterling

--William Hope Hodgson

--Stanislaw Lem.

An excellent overview of the cosmic perspective in general appears in this article in Scientific American by Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium. Some highlights:

Quote:

[H]owever big the world is—in our hearts, our minds, and our outsize atlases—the universe is even bigger. A depressing thought to some, but a liberating thought to me.

Consider an adult who tends to the traumas of a child: a broken toy, a scraped knee, a schoolyard bully. Adults know that kids have no clue what constitutes a genuine problem, because inexperience greatly limits their childhood perspective.

As grown-ups, dare we admit to ourselves that we, too, have a collective immaturity of view? Dare we admit that our thoughts and behaviors spring from a belief that the world revolves around us? Apparently not. And the evidence abounds. Part the curtains of society's racial, ethnic, religious, national, and cultural conflicts, and you find the human ego turning the knobs and pulling the levers.

Here are the eyes of a person who has not only written about, but actually looked into the Abyss. He wears the mark.

[www.fantasticfiction.co.uk]

[media.collegepublisher.com]

Is the enjoyment of sunsets banal? I love sunsets. Not necessarily the setting of the sun itself, but more the light it casts towards the east, and I like to hunt through landscapes and woods to where the warm light falls in patches on rocks and moss, and boles, making everything rich and saturated in color.

But while growing up I have been fed by so much ridicule about sunsets, that it's cheap and insipid in art, that I become so self-conscious and guilt-ridden about it, almost ashamed, that I can't fully loose myself in the experience. "No great artist paints sunsets". "Good aesthetic taste is more sophisticated, subtle, and complex. It explores more dynamic, interesting, and deeper subjects". And I admit that I am myself disgusted by the conventions of sunsets, especially around couples dutifully sitting down to see the sundisc disappear, and then rising to leave, nurturing their naive illusions about twosome-ness and soulmate-ness.

Naturally, I also enjoy sophisticated aesthetics, as in literature and art, and subtle forms and contrasts in Nature that usually go by unnoticed by most people. But somehow the light of sunsets lies at the core of it all, it triggers the motivation for everything else. While I admit that going for a noon walk with the sun looking through the clouds, cheers me up and saves me from insanity, from an aesthetic view I don't enjoy the daylight at all. I find it ugly and harsh, and would rather draw down the curtains and light a candle. Unfortunately the special light of the sunset only lasts for a few minutes. Capturing those moments is a race against time.
But if sunsets are trite, aren't most things we enjoy really? Even the cosmic viewpoint. For even the best among us, like Lovecraft, didn't really experience the cosmic perspective, aside from a vague notion about it, around which he constructed intellectual conceptual thought patterns, without real relation to actual cosmic perspectives. Experiences are limited to the nerves inside of our skulls.

Can someone help me with this conflict and guilt about sunsets? Should a mature mind be more sophisticated in taste?

Quote:

For even the best among us, like Lovecraft, didn't really experience the cosmic perspective, aside from a vague notion about it, around which he constructed intellectual conceptual thought patterns, without real relation to actual cosmic perspectives.

I cannot agree, as this is not something that we can possibly know (another's experience). If Lovecraft claims to have experienced the cosmic feeling very strongly (and he does), then I, for one, am not going to contradict him.

As for the rest of us, perhaps our failure to achieve a cosmic perspective more consistently is the result of social conditioning, automated behavior, and lack of will--all of which can be ameliorated, if not completely eliminated. At the end of the day (so to speak), triteness, or the lack of it, lies in the way in which we experience things, and not in what we experience.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 9 Mar 09 | 05:42PM by Kyberean.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For even the best among us, like Lovecraft, didn't
> really experience the cosmic perspective, aside
> from a vague notion about it, around which he
> constructed intellectual conceptual thought
> patterns, without real relation to actual cosmic
> perspectives.
>
> I cannot agree, as this is not something that we
> can possibly know (another's experience). If
> Lovecraft claims to have experienced the cosmic
> feeling very strongly (and he does), then I, for
> one, am not going to contradict him.

I presented this merely as an idea, a little to provoke, and I am not completely convinced of my own statement. I think it also depends on how we define cosmic perpective. I believe Lovecraft had a great intellectual experience, enhanced from his astronomical studies among other things. But if we by cosmic perspective mean actually realizing and sensing perspectives far removed from life on Earth, then I believe we also have to take in a spirtual dimension of the mind as a factor for realizing such, at this stage in humanity's limited exploration of, and physical reach out into, the cosmos.



> At the
> end of the day (so to speak), triteness, or the
> lack of it, lies in the way in which we experience
> things, and not in what we experience.

I liked this. Encouraging. Helps my conflicting relation to sunsets. Thank you!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 9 Mar 09 | 06:26PM by Knygatin.

I well understand provocation, lol, so no worries, there. I certainly did not mean that one ought not to question such things.

I see what you mean, with regard to Lovecraft, but he makes very clear in his letters that his attraction to the cosmic perspective is predominantly emotional. See, for instance, the following excerpt from a letter of his:

Quote:

As for me, I think I have the actual cosmic feeling very strongly. In fact I know that my most poignant emotional experiences are those which concern the lure of unplumbed space, the terror of the encroaching outer void, & the struggle of the ego to transcend the known & established order of time, (time, indeed, above all else, & nearly always in a backward direction) space, matter, force, geometry, & natural law in general".
--H.P. Lovecraft, letter to Clark Ashton Smith, October 17, 1930

To me, this emotional as well as intellectual attraction to cosmicism is as revealing a marker as any of a "spiritual" perspective, regardless of Lovecraft's consciously avowed mechanistic materialist philosophy. Indeed, like Nietzsche, Lovecraft seems to me to be very spiritual, even if despite himself, in ways that matter to me, at least, and much more so than the majority who take that title openly.

I do not know if I can fulfill your problem with sunsets, probably not - however, for me, and in two places in particular -- one a promontory overlooking the Pacific Ocean, and two, the vast reaches of West Texas, particularly on the edge of the Pecos canyon -
When extremely clear, as one stands watching the sun go down, at the last moment (due no doubt to the refraction angle), the sun appears to speed up, and I have often had the sensation of moving backwards - which is in fact what I am doing in relation to the stationary sun. It is quite thrilling - Once near Sutro's (now gone) at the Cliff House restaurant, with a particularly lovely creature (also lyric soprano) along, we watched the horizon of storms and heavy clouds, and were humming the love duet from La Boheme, when, at the moment of the dual High C - the clouds on the horizon lifted for just a moment as the sun visibly sank - it was overwhelming, and a prelude to a remarkable evening of youthful enlightenment.

calonlan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I do not know if I can fulfill your problem with
> sunsets, probably not -

I think I see how you mean, mirroring my comment about romance sunset, including disappearing sundisc and all. That's alright, I don't mind it per se. As Kyberean put it, triteness, or the lack of it, lies in the way in which we experience things, and not in what we experience.

I like the sensation you describe about falling backwards, and here enters a little cosmic element too. I had some similar sensation, although it was not at a sunset, standing atop a mountain hill, looking out over the ocean; I was simply in the middle of space, and right underneath my feet was the enormous Sphere, below me, with its geological and seething biological surface details, hanging in space, and pulling my otherwise lost mental senses down in its one direction of balance. Far off was the Sun similarly hanging. Seeing the horizon all around of course helped this sensation.

When looking at sunsets I can recommend trying a pair of binoculars. Not too much magnification, perhaps 8x. (Otherwise it will just focus on a small isolated spot. You will still want the sensation of a wide horizon view.) The most intense sunset colors are most often down close to the horizon, and the binoculars will present the sunset in a way that it can't be seen anywhere in the World, and will magnify it halfway up the sky. Colors will be even more intensified, and the cloud formations monstrous. At the same time the foreground will remain undistorted, and natural looking. (Because of an optical illusion, in which the sunset and foreground are too far apart to be related in visual perspective). It is very bizarre.
But never ever look straight into the Sun with binoculars, or you can go blind! Always keep it at the side, or wait till it is below the horizon.

But for me, the real creme de la creme, is turning around 180 degrees away from the sun, my back towards it (the rebel in me I guess) and rushing off into the wood, to where the red sunlight shines on objects. The light we receive from the setting Sun is a secondary "borrowed light". For the Sun is now elsewhere, in lands over the edge of the World, in places we have no contact with, and can't visualize, other than in our imagination. So the light we receive from those distant locales, is really fairy light. Bringing with it hints of hidden and intricate vibrations. A patch of sunlight on a tree is so intense as to seem tangible, almost like an etheral substance plastered onto the bark. Just looking at it sets off the imagination. And the sunset rays have a way of intensifying all different colors; the shadows appear a deep purple or rich violet. And the clover on the ground looks like someone has generously sprinkled out emeralds from his pouch.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 14 Mar 09 | 06:22PM by Knygatin.

In terms of descriptive prose, reflecting on your observations of reflected light - read "watership down" and notice particularly the section on the grass in moonlight - absolutely superb -
the book is a retelling of Homer - rabbit style.

calonlan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In terms of descriptive prose, reflecting on your
> observations of reflected light - read "watership
> down" and notice particularly the section on the
> grass in moonlight - absolutely superb -
> the book is a retelling of Homer - rabbit style.

It is somewhere on the bookshelves of my parents'. I have been told many times to read it. I wasn't enough enticed to it, because it seemed too normal and widely accepted. As a kid I did read The Book of the Dun Cow instead, because it had a monster in it, but that is so long ago that I don't remember much of it. I am sure Watership Down has fine prose and insightful philosophy on human relations, but the fable format with straight allegorical use of animals just doesn't attract me (although I enjoy Rackham's illustrations for Aisopos). I prefer more bizarre, richly decadent fantasy.

I'm not suggesting it as "a matter of preference" - but as an extraordinary example of really fine writing in the location I mentioned - it is far into the book where the rabbits have found the down - It is structurally, a masterpiece. Fine writing is its own justification for those who would write - If I only read the Wall Street Journal and National Review I would have no idea what my enemies are up to! - And the treatment of Death (the Black Rabbit) is "monster enow".

calonlan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not suggesting it as "a matter of preference"
> - but as an extraordinary example of really fine
> writing in the location I mentioned - it is far
> into the book where the rabbits have found the
> down - It is structurally, a masterpiece. Fine
> writing is its own justification for those who
> would write - If I only read the Wall Street
> Journal and National Review I would have no idea
> what my enemies are up to! - And the treatment of
> Death (the Black Rabbit) is "monster enow".


I may come around to it. But I have a pile of unread classic masters before me, that I have dedicated myself to eventually read. Right now I am into Wordsworth (he is very wise in his basic Nature foundations, and uplifting for the soul!). I do read things outside my preference, and take them as vitamin pills. I am not a would be writer (the urge in that direction was not strong enough to dedicate me a hundred percent), and select reading matter purely from substance rather than writing style (although I enjoy the aesthetics and balance of good structure). I also strongly believe that style is nothing worthwhile in itself to strive for. Even though a result of training, good meaningful style is only a nonconcious reflection of the wise person's accumulated knowledge and composite outlook on life. Therefore it is useles and asinine to try to emulate another writer's style.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 16 Mar 09 | 01:20AM by Knygatin.

I would have to disagree a little with your last observation. The actual history of the works of the great authors reveals just the opposite - most writers begin by emulating some writer or master they admire - often as a way to force themselves to dare to put pen to paper - but this only releases their own inner "daemon" and begins the process that results in even a Spenser and a Milton.
Read Clark's early work in "Sword of Zagan" - For fun, take a look at Byron's "Thoughts on a College Examination".

calonlan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would have to disagree a little with your last
> observation. The actual history of the works of
> the great authors reveals just the opposite - most
> writers begin by emulating some writer or master
> they admire - often as a way to force themselves
> to dare to put pen to paper - but this only
> releases their own inner "daemon" and begins the
> process that results in even a Spenser and a
> Milton.
> Read Clark's early work in "Sword of Zagan" - For
> fun, take a look at Byron's "Thoughts on a College
> Examination".



Well.... the creative process is a rather complex matter. With several truths, being parallel, depending on what perspective one chooses to view from. It's a thing maturing over time, with many different factors and circumstances falling in from different directions in the whole living process, all the pieces eventually fitting together and merging into a whole within the mature artist.

I agree with what you say. No artist can remain unaffected by other artists, and be an isolated island. Just as ones voice will always carry traces of ones parents'. And the evolving artist studies and admires the work of mature artists. It's part of the early stages. So my comment in previous post above was unclear, I was thinking of the artist who supposedly has progressed into some stage of independence. A writer who remains in slavelike worship, continuing to emulate, will be no more than a parrot. To become a mature artist in his own right, he/she must look elsewhere, at Life. An artist who has matured and come around to his own personal style, does not conciously strive for the style, but strives to express TRUTH. And when he succeeds in capturing some kind of (inner) truth, the selected words and the order they fall in, will form a natural flowing style reflecting this truth, the individual voice being a melded totality of the writer's accumulated learning process history. That is what real art is all about, expressing some kind of truth. If the style becomes an end in itself, a self-conscious studious surface effort, then he will certainly deteriorate as artist.

I don't know why I analyze over formal things like this. It's pretty useless on this forum, like "breaking in open doors", when most already take these things for granted. I guess I do it compulsory, to get some sense of inner balance and order, in a World of humans in which I only see chaos and confusion. I could probably use my energies for better and more creatively fun things.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 19 Mar 09 | 02:59AM by Knygatin.

Don't underestimate chaos. Without it, there could be no creativity, in my estimation. As Nietzsche observed, "one must have chaos within one to give birth to a dancing star"--an appropriately cosmic observation, as well, in keeping with the thread!

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't underestimate chaos. Without it, there could
> be no creativity, in my estimation. As Nietzsche
> observed, "one must have chaos within one to give
> birth to a dancing star"--an appropriately cosmic
> observation, as well, in keeping with the thread!

That makes sense, since the ordered parts of a created thing rest, the energies have been crystalized. Chaos seeks balance.

This makes one think of the formulary hacks who grind out endless volumes as variation by character names and locales and eras, but always the same tired tale - yet make buckets of money - the inversion within society -
"When young and would have really relished a Ferrari, I couldn' afford one; now that I can, I don't give a damn."
Calonlan

Marcus Aurelius's Stoic predecessor Seneca was more succinct regarding the cosmic perspective, but no less eloquent:

"Infinitely swift is the flight of time … Everything slips into the same abyss … The time which we spend in living is but a point, even less than a point".

"Place before your mind’s eye the vast spread of time’s abyss, and consider the universe; and then contrast our so-called human life with infinity".

"As the mind wanders among the very stars it delights in laughing at the mosaic floors of the rich and at the whole earth with all its gold".

Also, this excerpt from Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot, though still a bit sentimental in parts for my taste, nicely hammers home the point.

(Forgive me for subjecting you to the music!)

Here is a poem by William Wordsworth. He has no fantastic or weird elements, but there is a basic cosmic viewpoint in the way he connects the small with the big.


"I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud"

I wandered lonely as a cloud
That floats on high o'er vales and hills,
When all at once I saw a crowd,
A host, of golden daffodils;
Beside the lake, beneath the trees,
Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.

Continuous as the stars that shine
And twinkle on the milky way,
They stretched in never-ending line
Along the margin of a bay:
Ten thousand saw I at a glance,
Tossing their heads in sprightly dance.

The waves beside them danced; but they
Out-did the sparkling waves in glee:
A poet could not but be gay,
In such a jocund company:
I gazed---and gazed---but little thought
What wealth the show to me had brought:

For oft, when on my couch I lie
In vacant or in pensive mood,
They flash upon that inward eye
Which is the bliss of solitude;
And then my heart with pleasure fills,
And dances with the daffodils.

William Wordsworth


For me Wordsworth is the founding poet for appreciation of Nature, laying the groundwork for later poets that explored more symbolic, romantic, and spiritual elements, like Keats and Shelley, and the succeeding Pantheistic and Weird writers.

In a harsh materialistic World that has lost essential contact with Nature, and disharmony and petty rules, Wordsworth can lead you back to the simple joyful foundations.

"The Daffodils" anthropomorphizes far too much for me to think of it as cosmic. Much more so are some of the passages from The Prelude:


I: 391-400

[F]or many days, my brain
Worked with a dim and undetermined sense
Of unknown modes of being; o'er my thoughts
There hung a darkness, call it solitude
Or blank desertion. No familiar shapes
Remained, no pleasant images of trees,
Of sea or sky, no colours of green fields;
But huge and mighty forms, that do not live
Like living men, moved slowly through the mind
By day, and were a trouble to my dreams.


II: 302-322

[F]or I would walk alone,
Under the quiet stars, and at that time
Have felt whate'er there is of power in sound
To breathe an elevated mood, by form
Or image unprofaned; and I would stand,
If the night blackened with a coming storm,
Beneath some rock, listening to notes that are
The ghostly language of the ancient earth,
Or make their dim abode in distant winds.

Thence did I drink the visionary power;
And deem not profitless those fleeting moods
Of shadowy exultation: not for this,
That they are kindred to our purer mind
And intellectual life; but that the soul,
Remembering how she felt, but what she felt
Remembering not, retains an obscure sense
Of possible sublimity, whereto
With growing faculties she doth aspire,
With faculties still growing, feeling still

That whatsoever point they gain, they yet
Have something to pursue.

Those are nice passages, describing the inner senses of a person striving to reach out for the cosmic.



Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The Daffodils" anthropomorphizes far too much for
> me to think of it as cosmic.

I was rather alluding to the passage that compares the growth of the daffodils to the streams of stars.
Clusters of flowers and star clusters follow the same geometric laws. Observing such associations, is one way of reaching out toward the cosmic.

Quote:

I was rather alluding to the passage that compares the growth of the daffodils to the streams of stars.

Yes, I see what you mean. I was focusing more upon the anthropomorphic, which is a predominant motif of the poem, but your observation is certainly valid. The passage that you refer to is an interesting one.

What's also interesting is the poet's self-comparison to a cloud (cf. Shelley's cloud that "brings fresh showers for the thirsting flowers"). The comparison subtly suggests that, just as the daffodils derive material sustenance from the cloud's rainfall, they derive a "spiritual", or "higher", existence from their transmutation via the poet's imagination.

Ahh, Autumn, favorite season! As right at this time! Indian summer, with glorious sunny days!

The first step towards cosmic awareness I think, and the single best remedy for any kind of depressive mood, is to leave ones books and the four walls of home, and go out into Nature and study real Life.

Had a wonderful stroll yesterday afternoon. Went into the woods, with a basket for the possibility of finding chanterells. Got lost, and couldn't find the way to my favorite mushroom picking place, so there were no mushrooms this time around. This afternoon was set for visuals, rather than utility. The pine stems were covered with bluish lichen, fluorescent in the shade. There was a brook with strangely red water trickling, and I imagined it being wine (completely out of place in this northern climate), (or perhaps, possibly blood, but I wasn't in the horror mood).
Out on the halcyon fields, where sheep graced in pastoral idyll, mists were rising from yesterday's rains, causing the setting sun to beam forth shafts of light from behind the hillocks, while gossamer drifted on the air and insects danced.

There was only one "snake" in my afternoon paradise. In the wood I was attacked by nasty brownish flies with rudimentary wings, that jumped at me from the branches, trying to suck my blood. Unlike ordinary flies, they are flat-bodied, and difficult to scrape off once they land on your skin. They are as subtle as a birth mole to the touch of your fingers. And they don't die when you smack or flick them. They just make a sharp turn in the air and are right back at you. It seems they aim for shadowy spots, often hiding behind the ears. One even flew straight into my nose. Then I started running in panic. And I regret not bringing a comb, because they were all over my hair, crawling down to the scalp. Disgusting creatures!
I guess cosmic awareness would mean not getting upset by such small local details of mundane discomfort, and just let them crawl all over you. ;) Or at least, remove them in a matter of fact way, without emotional turmoil. ;)

I did end my stroll with a degree of utility. For out by the sea, in the last remaing radiance of light, I plucked blue sea mussels, which I took home and cooked a dinner from.

My perspective is different, I suppose, as I do not see the cosmic as being tied so closely to nature mysticism. Steve Behrends offers some useful reminders on the subject. According to Behrends, cosmic perspectives are

Quote:

[A]ssociated with concepts vast and vastly mysterious, and with the use of startling, unearthly imagery; they partake of a distant perspective, and above all are pervaded with an indifference toward human affairs, thus provoking a sense of our littleness and transience. [...] [A] cosmic work need not be vast in scale, but can instead be vast in Its implications, by invoking gulfs lying unsuspected beyond daily life.

Nature mysticism and cosmicism both de-center the human, but cosmicism does so on a much vaster and more unearthly scale.

Yea, agreed.

A gradual de-centering. You step out into Nature, among its mystical elements and energies, and you're enveloped by it, you disperse, become part of your surrounding, your ego partly dissolves. You look up, up at the stars, and the de-centering expands further, toward the cosmic, and Earth itself takes on the role and enclosed identity your body had before while walking in the wood. And likewise, again, you dissolve from that larger degree identity, and now you're spirit, a Star-Treader.

Well said! Nature is a starting-point for perceptions of the cosmic and the unbounded, something that the poets and theorists of the Sublime during the 18th and 19th Centuries understood well.

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.

not a choir - the Sacred Harp was a singing method - just plain folks getting together - very true folk music, and ethnically authentic - of course they sing Hymns - so what?

calonlan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> not a choir - the Sacred Harp was a singing method
> - just plain folks getting together - very true
> folk music, and ethnically authentic - of course
> they sing Hymns - so what?

I searched for The Sacred Harp on youtube. I got the impression of a rather ambitious religious choir.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgnpJiMHJfE&feature=related

Sounds like they are having a good time though! People of like mind and conviction strongly bonded together.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> calonlan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > not a choir - the Sacred Harp was a singing
> method
> > - just plain folks getting together - very true
> > folk music, and ethnically authentic - of
> course
> > they sing Hymns - so what?
>
> I searched for The Sacred Harp on youtube. I got
> the impression of a rather ambitious religious
> choir.
> [www.youtube.com]
> =related

There are hundreds of small gatherings all over the country, though mainly the south, I have never seen more than 40 people in one of the 4 groups around Pigeon Forge, Tennesee - In Texas there are a couple of dozen groups - they do have an annual gathering in Henderson Texas where I presume large numbers gather - it is, as the next writer observed, a hell of a lot of fun - The system uses "shape notes", in which each shape represents some note on the octave using the common "do, re, me..." designation - one person will be asked to "raise" a song - having made a choice, and designating the key note (do) - each line is sung separately - bass, tenor, alto,soprano - usually with lead line first which may be any of the four parts, though commonly the soprano line - as in "do - fa, sol-da-sol would be "amazing grace" first 5 notes - then they do all four parts using those sounds - then sing it in English - historically much easier way to sight read if learned first - and in the early days of American Education, most music programs in the public schools used this method - now the Kodaly Method is most commonly used for sight singing- those of you who watched "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" will remember the hand motions that indicated the notes of the alien signal - that was Kodaly - hand flat, hand vertical thumb up, hand flat, fingers bent down at the knuckle - shape notes evolved into the heavily Protestant south from the Roman and Anglican Chant notation - "O quae mutatio rerum" (Latin ending to old German student drinking song)

opening 5 notes -