Re: Poetry Most Indicative
Posted by:
Kyberean (IP Logged)
Date: 9 August, 2002 04:00PM
Dr. Farmer,
I appreciate your comments. I certainly agree that no one's perspective is static, least of all that of an intellect of CAS's caliber. Perhaps we would both be more accurate to speak of a writer's philosophy or world-view at a given period. I "know" best the CAS of the period from approximately 1912-1937. Rightly or wrongly, I do feel confident that, based upon the written information at my disposal, the influences and perspectives that I cited, above, better reflect the essence of CAS's thought at that time than that of Zoroaster or the authors of the Cabala, for instance. Since that period is also the one most relevant to the works discussed in Philip Gelatt's paper, I confined my brief supporting quotations to that time, as well.
Of course, you're quite right that my not having known CAS personally places me at a disadavantage when discussing the evolution of his thought as a whole, as does the fact that his published writings from the 1940's onward are comparatively sparse. I do, however, find it difficult to believe that any seismic upheavals occurred in his thought during that period. I (and others, I'm sure) would, however, be fascinated to hear any further information that you may have on this subject, since you are, indeed, uniquely well qualified to speak of these matters from that time period.
As to the silliness of much literary criticism, you'll get no argument from me. I have no sympathy for Eliot, however, since his calculated cultivation of obscurity encouraged the activities of such scholarly mosquitoes. I also find it regrettable that Philip Gelatt appears to accept (unconsciously, I imagine) the notion that Modernism forms a sort of transcendent meta-perspective by which all other perspectives should be judged. The implication is that the writings of CAS and Lovecraft can be legitimized only by forcing them into the maw of Modernism, despite themselves. I could hardly disagree more. His reference to CAS and HPL as being comparatively "unimportant" writers leaves a sour taste in my mouth, as well, although it is certainly the sort of phrase that makes many literary critics and professors happy. I always ask, "important to whom?" The works of CAS and HPL are far more important to me than the works of Eliot, Joyce, or Pound, for instance. What this silly term really seems to mean is that certain writers are historically more influential than others. Since that is what such critics appear to mean, then that is what they ought to write. Greater "importance" implies greater "quality", and anyone who believes that the cream invariably rises should take a closer look at Ashton Smith's poetry and compare it to that of the "canonized" Modernist and Post-Modernist poetasters of our benighted century. As Gray wrote in his famous elegy, there are many mute, inglorious Miltons, indeed.
Re. Edwin Markham: I don't have a copy of the poem handy, either, but your recollection of it seems substantially accurate, at least according to my memory. By the way, if you or anyone else could point me to a link to, or otherwise provide, a copy of Markham's "Ballad of the Gallows", then I would be very grateful.