I have spent a great deal of time writing a new short story, paying attention to every subtle detail. The work is enjoyable but rather troublesome at times. I bet Hart Crane felt the same way.
I've just finished reading his biography, and I must say he was a brilliant yet tortured person. He loved poetry and had that inclination, I believe, to capture a mood perfectly; sort of like wishing to reach out and touch a star. Many writers fall into that trap. I am one of them and am trying to rid myself of it. But what I am about to point out is, though people wanted to like his work and yet did not understand it, like himself, deemed Crane a failure, or the greatest failure. But I know many who Love Hart Crane and his attempt to do the impossible. His poetry is very soul touching.

So appreciation for him has risen, the same can be said for Clark Ashton Smith, H.P. Lovecraft and Edgar A. Poe. But their work did not change, it was our perception of it as humanity grows and changes. Just a passing thought to all writers, that how good a work is is only in the human perception. If everyone knew that then I believe we wouldn't have as many tortured artists who take their lives.

Comments and thoughts for this post are always welcomed.

OConnor,CD

You make an interesting point about how dynamic literary perceptions can be. I agree with you that time can bring about a renaissance for certain poets and certainly as we begin to lose our natural settings and rethink our philosophies, some discarded poets will be reevauluated for their unique interpretations. Sometimes, one does not even have to wait a hundred years to see varying perception; Edgar Allen Poe, whom you brought up, was scorned and under-appreciated by many American academics and critics alike throughout his life. Yet, for some reason, in France, he was praised as a genius (take Mallarmé's "tomb" tribute to him as a prime example). Now, I can attest many academics praise Poe for his role in the creation of the mystery genre and use him in their classes as a precursor to the "Modernist" novel. I've never heard anyone though, speak kindly of his poetry...so there is still a long ways to go, if ever fully.

With this topic, I should like to raise one point of consideration and caution and that regards the urge to create perfection. While being under-appreciated or even unread has taken a severe toll on so many writers, I seriously doubt that the ones who committed suicide did it out of just being unread or under-appreciated professionally. With the vision of writers, comes sensitivity and often, a plethora of psychological complexities and challenges, which certainly play their part. And while it is true that some writers should not be so harsh on themselves for not capturing a certain mood, it is often that very tension and frustration that creates the best work. Look at how many times Elizabeth Bishop rewrote and reworked "One Art" for instance.

Being unsatisfied, at least for art it seems, is part of the process of pushing towards new visions and those same perceptions that will one day open the eyes of others to reevaluating our own time and those that came before.

When Hart Crane needed ideas, he wasn't above stealing. For instance, he pilfered from the unpublished manuscripts of Samuel Greenberg, a young poet (and, unlike Crane, a real one) who died of tuberculosis at the age of twenty-three. Perhaps even more vile are the two-faced academics who condoned Crane's actions. To mention Crane even on the same page as Poe, Lovecraft, and CAS sickens me. I wish that Crane had thrown himself overboard years earlier.

Just my perspective, which, among others, you so graciously solicited. ;-)

P.S. With this post, coupled with my previous remarks regarding Ramsey Campbell, I have officially fulfilled my "curmudgeon quota" for 2009. For the remainder of the year, I shall do my best to opt either for sunshine or for silence....