Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> calonlan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > -- Clark prided himself on his practical
> > skills in primitive living.
>
> Clark must have considered himself as very
> intelligent. Was he never embarrassed by his own
> inablility to use his intelligence to acquire more
> wealth and money? Reading his latter letters, it
> is very obvious that he suffered from his
> economical situation. I wonder that he should not
> have been more challenged, and driven to be shrewd
> in money-matters.

Short answer: yes, he was very frustrated. Independence was CAS's key consideration; money was simply a means to that end, and he never wanted to become a wage slave. He was almost constitutionally adverse to working for anyone on an on-going basis, preferring to work at odd jobs, preferably outdoors and somewhere he wouldn't be around a lot of strangers, until he had saved enough money to live on for several months--and he could squeeze a quarter until the eagle turned blue. He would then use this time to write, paint or carve, and when he ran low on funds he would repeat the process. When he applied for the railroad job, it was more a case of wanting to contribute in some way to the war effort, or at least be seen having a vital war-related job. The work did take its toll on his health, contributing to the series of strokes that finally ended his life in 1961.

Scott

google "fairy rings" or "faerie rings" - they are (or were) abundant in the forests of Europe, the British Isles, and Placer County --

Quote:

The work did take its toll on his health, contributing to the series of strokes that finally ended his life in 1961.

The poem "Tired Gardner" says volumes about this, alas.

I am not a doctor, but to be as slender as CAS was and still to have high blood pressure strongly suggests endogenous factors at work, as well as exogenous ones, in the decline of his health. I doubt that he had regular physical examinations as often as he should have--understandable enough, too, given his circumstances. (I suspect that CAS was suspicious of all professionals, too).

Hi, Dr. Farmer


What was Clark Ashton Smiths views towards beauty and women in general. Reading some of his stories I believe he tried to uphold chivalry in a world that was changing. And because of his high intelligence I bet he would say real beauty is on the inside. I try to uphold chivalry but its hard because I've been having girl problems, lol. And GRRRRR, don't all us guys. "Can't live with 'em, can't live without em"

And having writers block, especially when you know what to say but don't have the words to say it, is hard and aggravating. Did CAS have that problem? And if so what did he do to solve it?

There are not clear and straight paths through Life. It's a complexity of ironies and grim contradictions. The ego's frustrated call for simple answers is never resolved. For every person it's an ongoing involuntary spasmic dance, between the inner sufficiencies and insufficiencies, and although grimly negative sounding, and although it can harbour pleasure and joy along the way, I won't hesitate to call it dance of death. Only deeper insights, opening up the mind to spiritual perspectives, or nonmaterial values, and to the intricate complexity of one's own abilities (which will make the dance appear less spasmic), will find peace of mind in this outer chaos.

Thank you Kyberean, English Assassin, Calonlan, and Scott Connors, for interesting posts on Clark's money problems. From very different perspectives. I found them enriching, and uplifting.

OConnor,CD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi, Dr. Farmer
>
> And having writers block, especially when you know
> what to say but don't have the words to say it, is
> hard and aggravating. Did CAS have that problem?
> And if so what did he do to solve it?

If I may insert a small comment before Dr. Farmer, I would say the clues to all artistic work is practice and patience. And the answer to not being able to find the right words, is to continue the ongoing process searching for knowledge and understanding, because therein are those words hidden.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The work did take its toll on his health,
> contributing to the series of strokes that finally
> ended his life in 1961.
>
> The poem "Tired Gardner" says volumes about this,
> alas.
>
> I am not a doctor, but to be as slender as CAS
> was and still to have high blood pressure strongly
> suggests endogenous factors at work, as well as
> exogenous ones, in the decline of his health. I
> doubt that he had regular physical examinations as
> often as he should have--understandable enough,
> too, given his circumstances. (I suspect that CAS
> was suspicious of all professionals, too).


If you read the chapter about Dr. Abrams in Miriam Allen DeFord's THEY WERE SAN FRANCICANS, and if you know that he saw CAS regarding his tb, you'd have an idea as to why he was suspicious of doctors. This wasn't all that uncommon back then; Lovecraft's suspicion of doctors (after all, his mother died of a botched gall bladder removal) contributed to his death. I don't think that Robert E. Howard was all that suspicious of physicians given his father, but enough people have brought up oedipal complexes over the years that even that isn't certain. (That was a joke, folks; I don't buy the Oedipus Complex without a rather large discount.)
Keep in mind that CAS's father also suffered from hypertension, and it's pretty clear that there was a hereditary element to his health. Also, the scarlet fever he experienced as a boy probably turned into rheumatic fever, which can result in damaged heart valves that can "throw clots". Between this and the blood pressure, it's a miracle he didn't die sooner.
I agree that "Tired Gardner" is a very revealing work. I think that it and "Town Lights" are among the most revealing glimpses we have of CAS's actual mental state.

Scott

Thanks for the interesting information, Scott.

I knew that CAS had a mild case of TB, or, at least, was suspected of having it. I also know that he endured--Satan help him--an adult case of whooping cough, but I did not know about the scarlet fever. I am no epidemiologist, but I am a bit surprised that such a variety of nasty infectious diseases circulated so frequently in small, sparsely populated rural areas such as Auburn. Perhaps CAS was merely unlucky.

In particular, suspecting that he suffered from TB must have been especially frightening to one who, no doubt, was familiar with the life of Keats. There are few more depressing accounts in English literary biography than that of Keats dying in a small room in Rome with agonizing deliberateness, spitting blood monotonously into a cup, and convinced that his name "was writ in water".

It's interesting that Timeus was hypertensive, as well. Given that he lived for around a generation more than his son, his constitution must have been better able to cope with that condition. Was Timeus a smoker? And when did CAS adopt the tobacco habit?

By the way, don't get me wrong, re. doctors: There's good reason to be suspicious of them even today!

> I've been having girl problems, lol. And
> GRRRRR,

Since Dr Farmer has delayed answer (unless by email), I will take the liberty of answering.

Here is my advice: Go into a rage!!! Destroy something! Kick an old stump! Punch a boxing bag. Do some hard manual work, dig a well, lift stones. That works for me. Whatever you do, for God's sake, don't take it out on the girl, or on the rivaling guy. Or even worse perhaps, don't hurt yourself, for feeling sorry for yourself and victimized, because the pain is all one big illusion.

What we need to learn is that romanticism (exploited to its maximum during the 1800s), and the sensation of belonging together exclusively with a specific person, is illusion. It's Nature's way of tricking the brain, to get two people together, for guaranteeing the continuation of the species. Aside from messing around when younger, and going into temporary noncomitted encounters, women have an inbuilt genetic mechanism for selecting (and falling in love with) the man who best can supply protection and secure upbringing for the coming children. It's simple biology. If you can't "deliver", then the woman will leave you (even if there is erotic attraction, and a harmonious stimulating affinity between your personalities). It's as simple as that. It's just something one has to accept. If there is a reasonably good economic situation, and both persons are well balanced and mature individuals, then the relationship/marriage may remain stable. Not otherwise.

I believe Clark was aware of this, and his poverty and inability to get a regular income, was partly the reason he didn't have children, or a longterm stable love relationship (his marriage to Carol is a different matter, because they were both older independent individuals, Carol already having had her children. They could relate in a wiser, friendly-based manner, of mature acceptance; they were not on the level of getting into the family-raising biology-circus of younger people.)

I am posting here far too frequently, I realize, but these are unusually interesting discussions, to me.

Quote:

romanticism (exploited to its maximum during the 1800s)

I respectfully disagree. It's impossible to prove or disprove, of course, but I think that individuals in the West after 1900 have displayed far more unrealistic expectations about romance than their immediate predecessors, the Romantic movement notwithstanding. (Of course, one might blame the Romantics for laying the foundation for this).

As for CAS and his perspective on women and romance: My view, based upon what I know of his life (relatively little), is that he was scarred emotionally by a tragic relationship that he had in his early years. Very little has been made public about this relationship, to my knowledge.

I also do not think that CAS's inability to be a "good provider" had anything to do with his failure to have children and to marry earlier than he did. In part because of a later coarsening of temperament based upon "Experience", in Blake's sense of that term (some call this "maturity"), and in part as a reaction to this past traumatic relationship, CAS developed a rakish and cynical view of romance in real life (as opposed to in poetry), and he specifically chose married women as partners precisely because there was no chance that the relationship would offer long-term entanglements. It's a little sad reading the letters to George Sterling in which the younger CAS seems to make pathetic attempts to impress Sterling by going the latter one better in rakishness. Even relatively late in life, this pattern of forming infatuations only with married women seemed to persist. Personal preference, or sour grapes? Who knows?

Of course, Scott Connors, and perhaps Calonlan, knows far more about this matter than most anyone here, myself included, so their comments and corrections would be pertinent and welcome.

On a personal level, I certainly agree that hormones make fools of us when we are young, albeit some of us more than others. The poet Shelley seems to have understood this (although he handled romance perhaps worst than most) when he wrote (paraphrased from memory), "I think one is always in love with some thing or other. The error consists in seeking in a mortal image the likeness of which is perhaps eternal". Although, being neither a Platonist nor a believer in some Idealistic "eternity", I would quibble with Shelley's language, I basically agree with the poet, and I would add that the energies that go into youthful romantic love would be far better channeled in other directions. If it weren't for the "need" (also grossly overstated) to reproduce, I would say that we should all have our first serious romantic relationship only after the age of forty!


P.S. For O'Connor's benefit, it might be worthwhile to quote CAS's advice on how to handle women from his letter to Donald Wandrei. On the other hand, it would no doubt raise the ire of the few (it seems) women who read and post here! Lol.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 14 Aug 09 | 04:01PM by Kyberean.

Quote:

Aside from messing around when younger, and going into temporary noncomitted encounters, women have an inbuilt genetic mechanism for selecting (and falling in love with) the man who best can supply protection and secure upbringing for the coming children. It's simple biology. If you can't "deliver", then the woman will leave you (even if there is erotic attraction, and a harmonious stimulating affinity between your personalities). It's as simple as that. It's just something one has to accept. If there is a reasonably good economic situation, and both persons are well balanced and mature individuals, then the relationship/marriage may remain stable. Not otherwise.

Forgive me for being off topic. While there are certainly multiple aspects of truth to this statement, some of it is just complete bull. No offense. There are plenty of women out there, at this point, who have no interest in children and have far more complex motivations than just selecting a "suitable" breeding partner!

NightHalo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are plenty of women out there, at
> this point, who have no interest in children and
> have far more complex motivations than just
> selecting a "suitable" breeding partner!

"Far more complex motivations"? They like to nurture the illusion of being free and independent. "Freedom" is the exploited ideal today, just as "romanticism" was the ideal in the 1800s. But when it comes down to sex, it's all about biology, and even if part of the woman's consciousness has decided she does not want to have children, the selective behaviour is deepdown the same. Falling in love though, harbours a wide array of possible self-deceiving excuses, illusions for denying the solely biological drive. For who wants to be merely an animal, driven by instinct and without true free will?

I don't deny that women and men can be attracted to each other for other more spiritually elevated reasons, sharing interesting conversations and such, and seeing particular fascinating personality traits in the other they like. But this must be perceived as clearly separated and independent from the pure sexual attraction.


Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> romanticism (exploited to its maximum during the
> 1800s)
>
> I respectfully disagree. It's impossible to prove
> or disprove, of course, but I think that
> individuals in the West after 1900 have displayed
> far more unrealistic expectations about romance
> than their immediate predecessors, the Romantic
> movement notwithstanding. (Of course, one might
> blame the Romantics for laying the foundation for
> this).

With enough cultural research digging of those times, and unearthed documentary file statements, I guess it would be possible to prove.
Personally I believe the level of romantic expectations in individuals was the same in the 1800s as in the 1900s and now. The exploitation of romanticism among poets and in the superficial cultural ideals, of the 1800s, did not make a difference among real people. The sensation of love, expectation, illusionary idealization, disappointment and pain, is part of the biological setup, and has worked in the same way far back in time. It is also an individual thing; because some persons are very sensitive, and others are more thick-skinned practical down to earth and less susceptible to becoming heartbroken.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 14 Aug 09 | 05:32PM by Knygatin.

Quote:

The sensation of love, expectation, illusionary idealization, disappointment and pain, is part of the biological setup

According to this article, while the passionate feelings underpinning romantic love do seem to be cross-cultural and universal, the effect of those feelings upon marriage and begetting offspring is far from universal:

Quote:

While finding that romantic love appears to be a human universal, Dr. Jankowiak allows that it is still an alien idea in many cultures that such infatuation has anything to do with the choice of a spouse. "What's new in many cultures is the idea that romantic love should be the reason to marry someone," said Dr. Jankowiak. "Some cultures see being in love as a state to be pitied. One tribe in the mountains of Iran ridicules people who marry for love."

So, the factors of idealization, disillusion, and emotional pain are not biologically decreed inevitabilities in romantic and sexual relationships, and especially not in those that lead to marriage and family.

In any case, my assertion is that the degree and forms that romantic love take vary considerably over history. For that reason, among others, I stand by my statement that Western peoples of the 20th Century and beyond are more naive in their expectations of love, romance, and marriage than their immediate 19th-Century, Romantic-era predecessors. Read Jane Austen, if you don't believe me.

I am not interested in arguing the point, though. I also suspect that we may be differing on the basis of mutual misunderstandings. So, instead, let's give O'Connor a hand, by sharing CAS's recipe for successful dealings with the opposite sex:

Quote:

The Study of Woman is certainly a fearful and wonderful branch of biologic science. However, it is only fair to say--and well to know--that women don't all fall under the same classification. As Lafcadio Hearn says somewhere, they differ amazingly and diabolically. Also--contrary to the common idea--they are often too damned easy to understand. [...] Most [women] are hard-boiled and practical at bottom, as few men, even the most commercial, ever are. Also, they are more prone to petty snobbery, and are swayed to an unbelievable degree by such details as the cut of a man's hair, the way in which he tips the waiter, or helps them out of a car. They are worshippers of success, who fling themselves in regimens and cohorts at the head of the recognized genius but scorn the one who has still to make his way through obloquy and hardship. [...] Avoid, above all things, either the complaining or the supplicative attitudes. [...] A woman's disfavor isn't necessarily final. To become personal, I've had my face slapped, and have been loved to death an hour afterward by the slapper. [...] Hate and love, disgust and desire, belong to the same spectrum and shade into each other through a thousand semitones."

--CAS, letter to Donald Wandrei, June 24, 1935



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 14 Aug 09 | 09:55PM by Kyberean.

Quote:

If you can't "deliver", then the woman will leave you (even if there is erotic attraction, and a harmonious stimulating affinity between your personalities). It's as simple as that. It's just something one has to accept. If there is a reasonably good economic situation, and both persons are well balanced and mature individuals, then the relationship/marriage may remain stable. Not otherwise.

There is no doubt that women, like men, have imbed biological needs; of course sex is about biology and yes of course there is an element of selection to it. Now, in the above post you are giving advice to O'Conner about "women trouble"; you say, above, that women are driven by an innate selective process. At this point I agree. Yes, that is certainly a large underlying factor in male and female relationships.

However, then there is the quoted statement above. If a man cannot "deliver", by which I take you to mean: protective, economically stable, and giving forth children, then he is out regardless of any "affinities between personalities."

Aren't there relationships out there where many, if not all of these factors are not given? What about, say, a disabled man who is impotent, cannot protect, or even provide for his wife? Do all the women just leave? Certainly not. What I am opposed to in the above is the negation of other factors like psychological or emotional needs. Maybe these things are assumed to be motivated by biology in your post, but culture does have an affect as well as one's parents, and one's hopes and dreams for life. Whether a woman stays with a man does not necessarily have to do with his "delivering" role but could break down to something as simple as him not sharing those "illusions" you spoke of.

In that vein, you mention that freedom and independence is an illusion. To a degree that is true. Yet, don't we make decisions based off these same illusions? Isn't that some measure of independence? And if a woman does decide, say, to overcome her urge for children, or if say, she becomes a lesbian, doesn't that also give her some measure of "freedom" from her own biology?

I just don't think there are absolutes as the above quote seems to imply and certainly, despite what they may be, these illusions you speak of do have a place and are as real as the next thing if they cause us, in any way, to have an effect on the world (if they make us banish someone from our lives which has a real effect on that person). But this leads us to what the philosophers have been fighting over for centuries...so I will stop here and abstain from any further comment on this topic so we can get back to CAS.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 14 Aug 09 | 07:33PM by NightHalo.

NightHalo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I will stop here
> and abstain from any further comment on this topic
> so we can get back to CAS.


You may abstain from further comment as much as you like to. Or as much as your free will and needs truly will allow. But you did place a number of questions, and I will make a short comment.

I meant that the absence of free will lies specifically in the sexual process. In other areas of life, humans may have the freedom of choice (depending on how far one wishes to stretch the philosophizing), of reaching out to explore, manipulate and transform surroundnings and oneself, and be creative. Also, relationships change as you grow older, more tolerance to weakness may come with age, changing preferences, as I mentioned in my previous post about Clark's late marriage.

You mention "freedom" of lesbians. Homosexuals have either an aberration in their genetic setup. Or are engraved psychologically from early age on, in a way that makes them feel comfortable with, or have a need to explore, homosexuality. There is no true free will in this.

Ok, end of this discussion.




I cannot limit myself from discussing side issues, that might contribute to general understanding in the longer run, by not being allowed to go off topic. From here on I'd be happy to color my texts blue (or otherwise) whenever they go off topic, so that those not interested can skip over it.