I am still learning about CAS and may I say reading his work is like escaping from the confines of this world and going on a real vacation. But he was human and I am curious to know whether or not he ever had time periods where he knew what he wanted to say but could not find the language to present it properly. How did he deal with the anger which comes from it and how did he eventually overcome it. I am finishing a weird sketch and would like to know how CAS dealt with this sort of thing.

From conversations with Clark over several years, I can tell you only my impressions, as we discussed literature in general, and the act of writing in particular - When I knew him, the majority of his corpus had been completed, though a few more pieces emerged in the last years. Facility in acquiring a "style" comes from writing lots -
Clark did not express to me having had anger about writer's "block" - his general approach to all things if he encountered an obstacle was to just do something else for a while and then return to the previous project - whether writing, carving, or removing a large rock from where the garden might be expanding - he believed the mind would continue to work on the problem whether he was consciously concentrating on it or not, and when he returned to it, lo, it was solved or no longer mattered as something more interesting had shown up. In this way, a lot of carving got done and fired, wood was cut for the stove, fruit picked for the neighbours, or whatever - his writing however, shows few signs of interruption - that he experienced the frustration of "having" to write for publication, rather than investing the entire energy of his life into poetry, caused some very rough times for him emotionally in the beginning. You and I cannot imagine the penury under which he lived, and indeed, thrived -
he had simplicity of life without choice -- re-enforced by absolute loyalty to elderly parents - and then a world that changed too fast -
As a side note for helping with writer's block - Clark did a great deal of "free association" in conversaton - some writer's suggest just jotting down whatever comes into the mind as a way of getting through it; Clark would not have considered it a conscious technique, but just did it - his vast reading made it possible to range from one moment discussing the "Roman de la Rose" to relating that to Hegel's "Phenomenology of Mind".

It's interesting that CAS, who appeared to disdain the Surrealists, practiced such techniques as unconscious incubation and free association, which were so dear to the latter.

I would add with regard to writer's block and the like, that the more you desperately strive after something, the less likely you are to obtain it. Quit wanting it so much. Also, don't miss CAS's own writing tips.

While you are at it, ask yourself the question, "Why do I want to write?" Do you have something that you truly want to express, and (this is the important part) would you express it even if there was a certainty that no one else would read it? Or do you just want to be "A Writer", one who is known and acclaimed by others? If the former, then I wish you every success. If the latter, then I wish you miserable failure, because we already have far too many such types.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 9 Oct 09 | 08:23AM by Kyberean.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While you are at it, ask yourself the question,
> "Why do I want to write?" Do you have something
> that you truly want to express, and (this is the
> important part) would you express it even if there
> was a certainty that no one else would read it? Or
> do you just want to be "A Writer", one who is
> known and acclaimed by others? If the former, then
> I wish you every success. If the latter, then I
> wish you miserable failure, because we already
> have far too many such types.


I do not think writing, or art in general for that matter, has anything to do with "expressing yourself." Hence the desire to become A Writer seems to me just as fine a source of motivation as anything else. Remember, Smith wrote stories in order to put food on the table, and he certainly would not have if he had thought nobody would read them.

One becomes a writer, much as one becomes anything, however, by actually doing it, not by sitting around having fantasies about doing it. To experience "writer's block" one first needs to be a writer---i.e., one needs to have written something that was published---otherwise most of the world's population could be said to be suffering from the affliction, rendering the concept meaningless.

Quote:

I do not think writing, or art in general for that matter, has anything to do with "expressing yourself."

Read more carefully, please. I did not write "expressing yourself". I wrote "something to express". I hope that I don't have to explain the rather obvious difference.

Quote:

Remember, Smith wrote stories in order to put food on the table, and he certainly would not have if he had thought nobody would read them.

Maybe, maybe not. You have no way of knowing. CAS certainly did not write "The Abominations of Yondo" with great remuneration in mind. In fact, he did not even have a publisher for it at the time that he conceived and wrote that story.

Like many, you also seem to be forgetting that CAS was a poet. Did he write "The Star-Treader" to put food onto the table, as well, or did he do so in order to magnify his ego by attaining the acclaim of a wide readership? I rather doubt it.

Anyway, enough responding to trollishness. CD, if you read this, my point is merely that writing should be intrinsically motivated and should arise from inner desire, even necessity. Yet, paradoxically, it is also not something that should become an object of intense desire and craving unto itself. If you find that to be worthwhile advice, then you are welcome to it. If not, then best of luck, anyway.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 9 Oct 09 | 11:20AM by Kyberean.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You also
> seem to be forgetting that CAS was a poet. Did he
> write "The Star-Treader" to put food onto the
> table, as well?

Notice how careful I was to say stories specifically. Who knows why people write poetry, really?

Yes, I did notice, but we are talking about writing, in general, and poetry is germane, here.

Who knows why people do anything, including engage in pointless online debate and repartee? ;-)

Jojo Lapin X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Notice how careful I was to say stories
> specifically. Who knows why people write poetry,
> really?

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who knows why people do anything, including engage
> in pointless online debate...

Oh, it's the ol' cat-and-dog fight.




Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the more you desperately strive after
> something, the less likely you are to obtain it.
> Quit wanting it so much.

What exactly do you mean by that?? This "wanting" is something I myself have been struggling with in my creative endeavours, and it seems to automatically repel others, and I just don't understand it. What I really desire, others choose not to oblige, out of sheer spitefulness it seems. (I guess it's a whiff of the old Oedipus.) (And I have this paralyzing fear that no one will ever want to pay for anything I do, no matter how good, simply because I don't like people,... a dislike which fills me with guilt, and hinders me from deserving anything. Want to be loved... but don't trust. And for good reason, because in weaknesses, humans are an ugly lot when scratching on the surface. So I choose to hide from the World instead of going out and taking chances. Sorry for undressing my personal issues like this on the forum, but it's a problem that just keeps clinging and can't be rid of, no matter how rational and wisely I try to reason it... so I have nothing to loose by telling it.) What difference does it make if one eagerly wants something? Why should it repel people? The desire, and ones ability or talent (or lack of), are two different things, being parallell. Naturally anyone who's is into some form of artistic expression, also wants to have success.

If I compare myself to CAS, I believe his misantrophy was more of an intellectual, pilosophical standpoint. Rather than emotional dysfunction. Anyway, his artistic success comes from natural talent, and a willingness to be openminded and learn, and be led by what he observes, rather than trying to force forth something by sheer will-power and aggression.

Quote:

Oh, it's the ol' cat-and-dog fight.

Well, not in this case. Though I don't always succeed, I try not to take Internet teapot tempests too seriously. Sometimes these exchanges generate at least as much light as heat, but more often it's the opposite, sad to say.

Quote:

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the more you desperately strive after
> something, the less likely you are to obtain it.
> Quit wanting it so much.

What exactly do you mean by that??

I am referring here to being blocked from creating, and not to others' reception of one's work. What I mean by not wanting something so much is that one tends to be overcome by desire, usually with a strong basis in personal ego, and thereby loses sight of the means to achieve the aim. My experience is that the more desperately one desires something, the more one focuses on the end, rather than calmly pursuing the means of achieving it.

Quote:

Naturally anyone who's is into some form of artistic expression, also wants to have success.

If, by "success", you mean sales, acclaim, and recognition by others, then I do not agree, but I realize that my position here is that of an extreme minority. For instance, I write a certain amount of poetry. I would like to see more of it published, one day, but I really do not care whether it is or it isn't. I would write it even if I were certain that no one else would read it, simply for the pleasure of doing so.

On the other hand, I have released a few CDs' worth of my electroacoustic music, and it has achieved a certain acclaim, in its tiny way, but, again, its external reception has nothing to do with whether I create music, or not.

As an aside, I would add that, although there was a strong emotional component underlying CAS's misanthropy, I agree with you that it is incorrect to dismiss his misanthropy as mere pathology. As misanthropy matures, however, my view is that it should ripen into indifference toward humans and the human aquarium, en masse. That perspective seems more healthy to me, at any rate.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10 Oct 09 | 11:44AM by Kyberean.

Many thanks. There's some food here for me to meditate on.

I was trying to make a joke with the cat-and-dog thing. It was merely lightly serious.

As pointed out here I feel writers block stems from our human fear of wanting to succeed. This fear can stem from many different psychological obstacles. But ultimately I think it stems from wanting to succeed. Wanting to succeed is not a bad thing. In either getting printed or succeeding in capturing your creations perfectly on paper. Either way that is succeeding. Me, I think its a little bit of both. Each time I write I 'bleed' all over myself because A. I try so hard to express my work as clearly as possible. Maybe even more clearly than is humanly possible. And B. So that other people can see and feel my work to the degree that I feel and see it. I think this is extant in each and everyone of us to some degree, whether we care to admit it or not. For those who say they write just to write and do not give a 'dam' what becomes of it, some are truthful, and to those people I must say I admire you. But the majority of us are not that way.

Clark Ashton Smith is extremely talented and I feel he wanted to put fourth his best stuff and have it printed. I am still learning a lot about this fascinating individual so I may be wrong here.

H.P. Lovecraft wanted to express his work as clearly as he envisioned it. Most of the time he said he failed. He exercised this outward persona of being an old gentlemen who only created just to create, but he did care what ultimately would happen to his stuff.

Me, again I hope to get many books published and have some degree of success. I hope to die knowing people have read and enjoyed my work. That they felt something, learned something and had many boring days relieved thanks to my stuff. I am even beginning this silly ritual now of creating my diary and saving MS's of my work and records of me doing things in hopes that these will be around when I die so that if others stumble across them they will know I lived and was a writer. Silly yes, psychotic, maybe.

But all of us want to succeed either creatively, personally or both. However talent must exist.

But publishing companies or people who say you do not have talent are idiots just because you do not write like the majority and follow the heard. This may be trite but look at Edgar A. Poe. In his time he was not very big, except maybe for his creation of The Raven. Mr. Graham didn't worship Poe or say he was good but look where Poe now. His work hasn't changed. Our outlook has changed and that is why Poe is where he is. For him we have put away our shallow, materialistic views and took an honest look at human art. At least for the human character Edgar A. Poe. We have done the same for others as can well be guessed.

So I think all of us want both success and recognition and whether we are good or not is relative. Everything depends on the outlook of other people. One last example- Emily Dickinson.

Knygatin:

I am glad that my remarks offered food for thought.

Also, I realized you were joking with the "cat and dog" reference, and I appreciated the multiple layers of meaning, as well. I just thought it was as good a time as any to expand upon my own views of the matter in a slightly more serious vein.

CD:

I think that you have a mature, balanced, and thoughtful perspective on the issue. Everyone needs to find his own balance here, certainly. I simply suspect that concerning oneself too much with the desire to be a writer, per se, can paradoxically interfere with with one's ability to achieve that aim. I would add that your reference to Dickinson is very apropos, to me, at any rate.

Anyway, best of luck in finding the balance you seek.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin:
>
> I am glad that my remarks offered food for
> thought.

Yeah, and especially in the important value of hearing it coming from someone else. It gives it an added dimension and weight. I think along similar lines, and am aware of how lack of concentration and haste ruins art. But it is not every day one is told by another, to confirm what one otherwise has to carry all alone.

Kyberean: You are correct. If a person keeps his perspective on merely becoming a "writer" then he or she forgets to have fun with merely being a creator. Writing, just like with anything in life, is about the fun of creating. I to wish you luck with whatever the purpose of your journey in life is. Thank you very much for your intuitive and settled advice.

Clark Smith did not like surrealists ?

I must interject a mild objection to the description of CAS a a "misanthrope" - Clark did not dislike the human race or people in general - of course, if, not expecting a rebuff, you nonetheless get one from left field, you get gun shy (to mix a batch of unrelated cliches) - but he loved the denizens of "old town" and the "happy hour" bar, the little oriental Grocery and its owners, the Tsuda brothers, Marilyn Novaks "junque" store and paperback exchange etc. -- it was the small town "artsy-fartsy" crowd that he found offensive, and rightly so.
The truly educated (the Sully's, and a number of German immigrants from WWI, Roy Squires et al), appreciated him and he them. Clark was quick to pick up on the "phony", and limited his time among them severely - he was also not deceived by the pretensions of (it is to laugh) Behavioral "Science" (talk about an oxymoron!)
and the philosophy so prevalent after WWI concerning the ultimate perfectiblity of humanity -- infintite progress written deeply upon the "tabula rasa" postulated by Dewey - To whatever extent Clark may be defined as a misanthrope, I think it would be limited to the wise dictum found at the end of "The Monster of the Prophecy" -- sentiments which I, myself, whole-heartedly endorse.

Rightly or wrongly, I see CAS as a misanthrope of the Swiftian variety, myself:

Quote:

I have ever hated all nations, professions, and communities, and all my love is toward individuals: for instance, I hate the tribe of lawyers, but I love Counsellor Such-a-one and Judge Such-a-one: so with physicians - I will not speak of my own trade - soldiers, English, Scotch, French, and the rest. But principally I hate and detest that animal called man, although I heartily love John, Peter, Thomas, and so forth. I have got materials toward a treatise, proving the falsity of that definition animal rationale, and to show it would be only rationis capax. Upon this great foundation of misanthropy, though not in Timon's manner, the whole building of my Travels is erected [...].

(Letter from Jonathan Swift to Alexander Pope)

I would add that the rationis capax assessement on Swift's part is agathistic, in my view.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11 Oct 09 | 03:46PM by Kyberean.

Kyberean,

Are you a retired lawyer?

Or perhaps a defrocked priest?

Well, if you must know....

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kyberean,
>
> Are you a retired lawyer?

Jojo Lapin X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Or perhaps a defrocked priest?

He's not a scientist. His straw man of the "science worshipper" corresponds to no real person.

Post 24 April, 2004

I am sorry, I could have looked it up before asking.

Just trying to better understand your individual perspective on art, and view that need for success is unimportant for the "truest" artists.

If one has a profession, career and job, or otherwise a stable economic situation, and dabbles in art as a hobby on the side, then one can afford to say that success is unimportant. However, fully consumate artists, greater or lesser, who have no other way of income, are very much concerned with succeeding economically. (Except perhaps someone who has extremely simple material needs.) It has no bearing on the artistic quality. Outside observers may think that, "Well, they sell out and compromise their honest expression, or loose the right focus.". But in those cases which clearly look commercial or poor in quality, it is more likely that these individuals really had no worthwhile quality artistic vision in the first place! Take Poe for instance, he was very much concerned with getting published. And so were many great artists throughout history.
If success is important, or if it is not, for a great artist, is simply governed by physical factors. And, some great artists may also have big egos, parallell to artistic quality.

(I am tired, I just can't get this post together! I need some sleep!)



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 11 Oct 09 | 07:48PM by Knygatin.

Priscian:

Quote:

His straw man of the "science worshipper" corresponds to no real person.

Hmm, it seems that someone's still nursing a grudge after having been smacked around during our last exchange.

Anyway, you haven't read much Richard Dawkins, have you? Or even any of Dawkins's recent ridiculous media pronouncements?

In sum: Nice try, troll, but there'll be no more feeding from me.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11 Oct 09 | 06:01PM by Kyberean.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> His straw man of the "science worshipper"
> corresponds to no real person.
>
> Haven't read much Richard Dawkins, have you? Or
> even any of Dawkins's recent brilliant media
> pronouncements?
>
> Anyway, nice try, troll, but there'll be no more
> feeding from me.

Your "uncritical worship of science and materialism" is performed by neither Dawkins nor Lovecraft, nor anyone else. To adduce such nonsense of Lovecraft and then call him "naive" sounds more like trolling than anything I've said here.

Having just finished the Dawkins article let me say this: The guy sounds so shallow minded. He may have a high rate of intelligence and teach at a school as renown as Oxford but he comes across as the most intelligent stupid person I have ever read about. Allowing a child to learn and be raised on myth, religion and fairy tales is in a way teaching them values and allowing them to learn such values having to do with the world around them. Of course kissing a frog will not turn it into a handsome prince, children are not that stupid. What this analogy is saying is beauty can be found even in things with non appealing visual qualities. But to limit a child's ability to learn about anything he or she wants to in the world around them is also a form of abuse. A child will learn to form his or her own conclusions by themselves. It is how the human mind is wired. I was raised on fairy tales and the supernatural and I am doing much better than the average.

This also stems from the new age way of thinking- that human beings are gods in their own right and are the owners of the universe. We claim this but have gotten no farther then the moon and a few distant planets and galaxies in a sea of infinite cosmos. Doesn't sound that Godly to me. Anyone with the slightest hint of intelligence would know that just because something cannot be proven to exist does not mean that it is not real or cannot happen. Somethings are not meant to be detected and are far above the human capacity to grasp and analyze. The world and spaces were created for us to enjoy. Not to serve us. We are merely a part of it, their guests. The true definition of intelligence is "I will learn as much as I can because what I am learning I know nothing about". And to know our place in the cosmos and world around us is smart. Pride is a dangerous thing ladies and gentlemen, and very unintelligent for such animals claiming to be the smartest of anything past, present and future.

Dawkins is hilarious. I am grateful to him, though, not merely because he offers an effortless refutation of Priscian's earlier statement, but because of the sheer entertainment value his fundamentalist-scientist mindset offers. With people such as Dawkins around, there's no need to dream up straw men.

As an aside, what would Dawkins have thought of CAS, if he finds Harry Potter so frighteningly threatening and inimical to the scientific world-view?!? It's a good thing that CAS did not write for children, I guess!

By the way, has anyone here ever tried to imagine what a CAS-penned children's story might resemble, or a children's tale by Lovecraft? That thought will give me a chuckle or two as I lie down to sleep tonight.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11 Oct 09 | 07:23PM by Kyberean.

Hope no one missed my important edits of my previous post.

I would even go so far as to say, that the drive to succeed and be published can be the most crucial factor for leading to any artistic results at all. Too much comfort can lead to laziness, regardless of talent. Pressure to put food on the table, can lead to great artistic achievements. For the talented. For the talented the art flows from the depths when starting to work. Regardless of conscious, superficial, motivations for getting going. The emotions, the esthestic sensibilities, the insights, wisdom, are still there, and will unconsciously be expressed through honesty, and by way of intelligence.

Nurturing the idealistic philosophy that the Art itself is the only thing of importance, can become a self-indulgent ego thing in itself. A way of pompously inflating oneself. It's just empty talk and pretension.

Either one has what it takes, or one doesn't. Either one has the talent, or not. Regardless of talk. Either one cuts it or one don't. Talking about it doesn't change it in one direction or the other.

(Alright, I'm dropping into bed.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11 Oct 09 | 08:42PM by Knygatin.

Quote:

Nurturing the idealistic philosophy that the Art itself is the only thing of importance, can become a self-indulgent ego thing in itself. A way of pompously inflating oneself. It's just empty talk and pretension.

It's a matter of perspective. As I see it, any art whose emergence depends solely or primarily upon the need to fill the belly is likely to be as ephemeral as a given meal.

As for ego and the like, no one loathes self-important, pretentious "art for art's sake" artists more than I do. That is not the sort of thing that I mean, at all. All I am saying is the following:

1. Powerful desires to reach a given end can interfere with the means; and,

2. Artistic activity that is primarily motivated by external forces, such as the desire for status or economic advancement--in a word, to advance the ego--is less desirable in the longer term than creating out of pure joy and personal inspiration.

I have stated these points as clearly as I can, and more than once, yet they still seem not to be well understood. For that reason, I am letting the matter drop. Best wishes and best of luck to all in this regard, whatever their perspective and motivations. Those who think that great art arises from mundane needs for food and shelter, or from the desire for personal recognition and aggrandizement, are welcome to follow that path.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11 Oct 09 | 09:15PM by Kyberean.

It is NOT a matter of choosen perspective. It is a matter of talent or no talent, what person one is. Either one has it or one don't. And great art does NOT arise out of mundande and ego needs per se, those needs are NOT why a great artist has choosen art in the first place. But those factors can sometimes be partial in getting the body going, to move from dreams to results, in a roundabout way. The cat, and the Muse, will approach you when not staring them right in the eye. And I repeat, the quality of the results will depend solely on evolved talent, NOT on choosen attitudes and perspectives.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have stated these points as clearly as I can,
> and more than once, yet they still seem not to be
> well understood. For that reason, I am letting the
> matter drop. Best wishes and best of luck to all
> in this regard, whatever their perspective and
> motivations. Those who think that great art arises
> from mundane needs for food and shelter, or from
> the desire for personal recognition and
> aggrandizement, are welcome to follow that path.

Best of luck here, best of luck there. Your sudden outbursts of dismission of others are quite amusing actually. Reminds me very much of my brother.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 12 Oct 09 | 07:33AM by Knygatin.

The real artist regards his art as a job. Like any other job. Because it is a job. Not the vision itself. But the manifestation of the vision into form, is a very practical job. "Writers block" occurs when this is lost, and the artist solely expects strong emotions in themselves to form into the art.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12 Oct 09 | 06:07AM by Knygatin.

There is no such thing as "talent." There is only hard work. If you do something long enough, you eventually become good at it. I would normally hesitate to recommend a popular bestseller, but Malcolm Gladwell's OUTLIERS (2008) summarizes the research in this area very well.

Jojo Lapin X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is no such thing as "talent."

Maybe not for dreamers.

Hard work is extremely important. Talent without work leads nowhere. Talent must be matured into expression, through hard work. One is either born with a deep incitement for art, or not. That incitement may perhaps be what is called "talent".

Quote:

Best of luck here, best of luck there. Your sudden outbursts of dismission of others are quite amusing actually. Reminds me very much of my brother.

I don't know your brother, and I doubt I would care to, so it's not clear why you would even mention such a thing in this forum. As a statement, it certainly does not convey any useful information to others.

For the rest, my remarks are not intended to be dismissive. They are simply an expression of weariness at my bumping into your incomprehension over and over again. This, even after I have explained quite clearly the limited context in which my very specific and narrowly tailored remarks should be taken. You are welcome, however, to misinterpret my phrasing as merely dismissive, just as you have misinterpreted my previous comments on this subject.

As a coda, I would add that you yourself seem to be very over-emotional--dare I say "dog-like"?--regarding this subject, and that strikes me as another reason why further dialogue with you in this thread is unlikely to be fruitful. My observations were intended for CD, primarily, anyway. He may or may not agree with me, and that's fine, but at least he seems to grasp my point, which elevates his understanding over that of certain others, here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12 Oct 09 | 09:03AM by Kyberean.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dawkins is hilarious. I am grateful to him,
> though, not merely because he offers an effortless
> refutation of Priscian's earlier statement, but
> because of the sheer entertainment value his
> fundamentalist-scientist mindset offers. With
> people such as Dawkins around, there's no need to
> dream up straw men.

If you think that Dawkins's aminadversions on religion (esp. that particular newspaper bit) are proof that he's an "uncritical worshiper of science," then you might want to have your logical-argumentation apparatus tuned up.

As for my "nursing a grudge," naw. In our last exchange all you did was ignore my specific criticisms by publishing some sort of blanket statement and pronouncing it irrefutable. Irrefutable it was not, but since you chose not to respond directly to anything I'd said, I figure you had no good response to it anyway.

Well, that certainly took off! I thought you would react with humour. There is nothing to be angry about. I think you overreact. And I don't misinterpret your remarks, I merely argue against them. And when you continue holding onto something which I don't agree with, then I argue again. I grasp your point, and show my own disagreement. Grasping your point doesn't mean that I will passively accept it. It's as simple as that.
Since the forum is anonymous, there is no harm in mentioning my brother. I mentioned him because it was the first thing that struck me very clearly. It was an impulsive attempt to convince with honesty and humour, and show that my critique held no deep grudge against you. I can see now that it was a bad choice.
Since you attack me, and even my family member, insinuatingly, I will take the moment to critizise back some aspects in you, even though I mostly enjoy your presence on the forum.

First of all I can't really deny the "dog-like" personality trait in me. I am quite emotional, and try to check it intellectually. (And yes, even I have some amount of intelligence.)

If you have no interest in my posts, or find my remarks so stupid, you are free to ignore them, instead of continuing conversation. First you encourage, and then the next moment tare everything down, roots and all.
You try to appear humble, but don't quite seem to comprehend that you act quite smug, and that you do dismiss others.

Let me guess that it could partly be a conditioning from law school. To always come out on top of others, no matter what. (*In good humour* if allowed)

I really don't believe in such a thing as luck. To me everything is predestined from cause and effect. Wishing others luck can be a temporary cheering up for the moment. But it is of no real consequence. Only a wift. A social nicety. Or it can be, as I felt in your case here, without belief or conviction in the wish, but instead charged with a fatalistic, and ironic undercurrent, coming from what has been said in previous sentences.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12 Oct 09 | 10:55AM by Knygatin.

Online communication is simply too open to misunderstandings, I think, and that is one of things that make it a regrettable waste of time, more often than not.

For that reason, among others, I think that in the future I am going to confine both my reading and posting to subjects of simple matters of fact, and save the more expansive discussions for others who actually know me, in private.

In other words, I have come to believe that the people who post here primarily about, say, publication dates for Clark Ashton Smith's works, or asking specific questions about CAS of individuals such as Scott Connors or Calonlan, ultimately have the right idea, and are on a better track.

I respect you standpoint. And I will refrain from further personal comments. I may though, perhaps, in the future post thoughts on art and litterature in general.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Online communication is simply too open to
> misunderstandings, I think, and that is one of
> things that make it a regrettable waste of time,
> more often than not.

What a strange thing to say! You could use the same argument to claim that publishing books and articles is a waste of time---even more so, in fact, as they typically do not have "smilies" to aid interpretation! Or maybe I misunderstood you.

I think Kyberean has a point. It never ceases to amaze me how much nastiness and ego are part and parcel of these online groups. Admittedly, the tone is rather higher than average here, but that isn't saying much. I take it as a sure sign of our collapsing civilization, that you literally can't watch a historical documentary on Youtube, without the third or fourth comment down being some piece of angry self assertion, crude sex talk, racism, etc.

At any rate, the ubiquity of this phenomenon almost demands some measure of misanthropy--if only as a psychological defense mechanism. Really, is everyone as disagreeable as they now seem to be? (I'm not attacking anyone here, just making a general statement.)

Which of course begs the question why I am even writing this....

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, that certainly took off! I thought you would
> react with humour. There is nothing to be angry
> about. I think you overreact. And I don't
> misinterpret your remarks, I merely argue against
> them. And when you continue holding onto something
> which I don't agree with, then I argue again. I
> grasp your point, and show my own disagreement.
> Grasping your point doesn't mean that I will
> passively accept it. It's as simple as that.
> Since the forum is anonymous, there is no harm in
> mentioning my brother. I mentioned him because it
> was the first thing that struck me very clearly.
> It was an impulsive attempt to convince with
> honesty and humour, and show that my critique held
> no deep grudge against you. I can see now that it
> was a bad choice.
> Since you attack me, and even my family member,
> insinuatingly, I will take the moment to critizise
> back some aspects in you, even though I mostly
> enjoy your presence on the forum.
>
> First of all I can't really deny the "dog-like"
> personality trait in me. I am quite emotional, and
> try to check it intellectually. (And yes, even I
> have some amount of intelligence.)
>
> If you have no interest in my posts, or find my
> remarks so stupid, you are free to ignore them,
> instead of continuing conversation. First you
> encourage, and then the next moment tare
> everything down, roots and all.
> You try to appear humble, but don't quite seem to
> comprehend that you act quite smug, and that you
> do dismiss others.
>
> Let me guess that it could partly be a
> conditioning from law school. To always come out
> on top of others, no matter what. (*In good
> humour* if allowed)
>
> I really don't believe in such a thing as luck. To
> me everything is predestined from cause and
> effect. Wishing others luck can be a temporary
> cheering up for the moment. But it is of no real
> consequence. Only a wift. A social nicety. Or it
> can be, as I felt in your case here, without
> belief or conviction in the wish, but instead
> charged with a fatalistic, and ironic
> undercurrent, coming from what has been said in
> previous sentences.


small note on the etymology of "luck" - While there is an obvious connection to the German "Gluck" (don't know how to put an Umlaut over the "u", but it's there), the older origin is Latin which infected the Germanic language significantly in the ancient past, and was itself affected - the term "Lucifer" (bearer of the the light) pronounced with a hard "C" provides the foundation for the word - but also is picked up from the Norse God "Loke"(Loge, loace, and Irish Loue long hand - all tricksters with a cognate among the inuit oddly enough). Lucifer, of course, in Jewish Mythology the highest Archangel who fell through pride and became the deceiver of mankind - to wish someone "good luck" was to pray that the god of fire (obvious) would warm you and not consume you - either literally or with vile passions - the evolution of this word to an essentially meaningless generality of good will is typical of many once highly useful terms -- "nice", and "cute" were once terms indicating precision in thought, and accuracy in mathematics - now one may hear of a "nice, cute Hippopomus".