If we can't get a new anthology of macabre verse, I'd settle for a reprinting of DARK OF THE MOON. It has, in fact, been reprinted years ago by an academic reprinter - and maybe more than once. If Arkham House can't be convinced to reprint it, the next most likely candidate would be UofNebaska Press, already a publisher of classic reprints in the field. I've written to both and nothing seems to be happening so maybe a few more letters & e-mails might convince the parties to do something. Either a reprint of DotM or a new collection using the same broad criteria for inclusion and covering a wide historic range could be marketed to just about every university library as an essential purchase and an excellent resource. It wouldn't be just for our little world.

JBP

Arkham House will do a reprint of Dark of the Moon -- in a couple of years. I've even seen the proposed cover art in the "August Derleth and Arkham House Publishers" group on Facebook.

The academic reprint of Dark of the Moon is even harder to find than a copy of the Arkham House original, though the latter is, of course, ridiculously expensive. I am glad that to learn that Arkham House is going to do a reprint, but the selection in Dark of the Moon, though worthwhile, is severely flawed. For instance, there are no poems whatsoever by George Sterling, but plenty of editor Derleth's own cr*p, along with lots of Amy Lowell and other modernist offal.

So, we definitely need a new anthology of weird poetry. I am sorry that Dan Clore is unlikely to complete the work he started in this domain, as his selection, from what I recall, was much better than Derleth's. I also seem to remember that another anthology of weird verse is in preparation, but unfortunately, I believe that Joshi has a hand in it? In the meantime, there is also John Hollander's anthology Poems Bewitched and Haunted, which appears to have a good selection, but I cannot vouch for it, otherwise.

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The academic reprint of Dark of the Moon is even
> harder to find than a copy of the Arkham House
> original, though the latter is, of course,
> ridiculously expensive. I am glad that to learn
> that Arkham House is going to do a reprint, but
> the selection in Dark of the Moon, though
> worthwhile, is severely flawed. For instance,
> there are no poems whatsoever by George Sterling,
> but plenty of editor Derleth's own cr*p, along
> with lots of Amy Lowell and other modernist
> offal.

From what I remember, the reprint will be updated and expanded, and supplemented with an expanded reprint of Fire and Sleet and Candlelight.

>
> So, we definitely need a new anthology of weird
> poetry. I am sorry that Dan Clore is unlikely to
> complete the work he started in this domain, as
> his selection, from what I recall, was much better
> than Derleth's. I also seem to remember that
> another anthology of weird verse is in
> preparation, but unfortunately, I believe that
> Joshi has a hand in it?

Isn't it a bit early to say "unfortunately" before you've seen the selection? IIRC, Joshi & Mariconda's Dreams of Fear will start with excerpts from Homer and move up to the present time, so it may cover a bit more than Derleth's did. And I think I can guarantee that Sterling will be represented and that there will be less "modernist offal". *shudder*

That's interesting news, about the revision and expansion of Dark of the Moon.

I was half-kidding, regarding Joshi and his involvement, although, as you know from my previous posts here, I am not an unqualified admirer of his. One likely consequence of Joshi's involvement will be corrupt texts and typographical errors, so I hope you plan to volunteer your proofreading skills?

Quote:

there will be less "modernist offal". *shudder*

That's the positive side of Joshi's involvement, as I agree 100% with his stance regarding modern "poetry", and I doubt the sort of bilge that Derleth let through will escape Joshi's scrutiny.

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's interesting news, about the revision and
> expansion of Dark of the Moon.
>
> I was half-kidding, regarding Joshi and his
> involvement, although, as you know from my
> previous posts here, I am not an unqualified
> admirer of his. One likely consequence of Joshi's
> involvement will be corrupt texts and
> typographical errors, so I hope you plan to
> volunteer your proofreading skills?

:) Alas, probably not. I will probably have access to only a portion of the poems he and Steve will use, so I won't have anything to check the book against. :( Besides, I'm swamped with that kind of work at the moment (both Swedish and American).

>
> there will be less "modernist offal". *shudder*
>
> That's the positive side of Joshi's involvement,
> as I agree 100% with his stance regarding modern
> "poetry", and I doubt the sort of bilge that
> Derleth let through will escape Joshi's scrutiny.

Some of Barlow's stuff I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not a big fan of the modernists. I think it was Dunsany who said of Eliot: "Mr. Eliot has brought the English language to an all-time low. I'm not saying that he's writing it, I'm saying that he's brought it to an all-time low." Or words to that effect.

Since 2004 I have been posting at my NIGHTHAGS group (with increasing infrequency) a collection of mostly older, weird poetry I have run across over the years. I only recently obtained Derleth's anthologies, so am not sure how much is repetitive. Many of my selections may be familiar to ye lovers of strange and supernatural verse. Still, some might hopefully relish and delight in the few undiscovered, bizarre treasures here, or contribute poetic gems I have missed.

[groups.yahoo.com]

Quick tangential note on modern poetry, which shows how complicated the entire mess can get:

1. The Modernists (Eliot, Pound) despised the English Romantic poets.

2. Clark Ashton Smith greatly admired the English Romantic poets; indeed, his work is almost unthinkable without them.

3. Clark Ashton Smith despised the Modernists.

4. The Surrealists, who were very much part of the modern movement in poetry, loved Clark Ashton Smith.

5. Clark Ashton Smith wrote a sonnet mocking the Surrealists.

6. The Surrealists also hated Eliot, Pound, and most of the recognized Modernists.

Draw from this peculiar tangle whatever conclusions you will.... In any case, what is interesting is that most "weird poetry" tends to come packaged in traditional poetic forms.

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Quick tangential note on modern poetry, which
> shows how complicated the entire mess can get:
>
> 1. The Modernists (Eliot, Pound) despised the
> English Romantic poets.
>
> 2. Clark Ashton Smith greatly admired the English
> Romantic poets; indeed, his work is almost
> unthinkable without them.
>
> 3. Clark Ashton Smith despised the Modernists.
>
> 4. The Surrealists, who were very much part of the
> modern movement in poetry, loved Clark Ashton
> Smith.
>
> 5. Clark Ashton Smith wrote a sonnet mocking the
> Surrealists.
>
> 6. The Surrealists also hated Eliot, Pound, and
> most of the recognized Modernists.
>
Sounds like Congress.

It does seem like Congress, and for good reason. These "quick tangential notes" are basically true, but it might be interesting to note why: political differences.

The Modernists didn't despise the Romantics, but they certainly did criticized them for their philosphical confusion(s). After all, the Romantics, in their lifting up of nature and the imagination, are the same people who hailed the Industrial Revolution, which has steamrolled over the imagination, nature and beauty itself. The Surrealists, as far-left wingers (with Dali being a notable exception), 'hated' Pound or Eliot because they leaned to the ideological right. Eliot's politics have been described as conservative, feudalist, and fascistic, while Pound was a fascist and anti-Semite. Pound also was an exponent of Vorticism, an offshoot of Futurism, which praised the powers of technology and industrialization. All Modernist movements, of course, but there were plenty of Modernists who were strongly opposed to their rightist contemporaries.

On another note, it appears that lot of the hostility that lovers of formalist poetry have for Modernism is that they practiced free verse, but really, both Pound and Eliot argued vigorously for a strong backround in formal poetics. Indeed, many of their best known works are exercises in formalism, much of it (especially in the case of Eliot) rhymed.

CAS had a Romantic soul, and shared a lot of the same feelings that Machen, Blackwood, and Lovecraft had about modernity. He even disliked automobiles. It's also interesting to note that the Surrealists liked CAS (for obvious reasons). But why did CAS scorn the Surrealists? Was it simply a matter of his love of formalist aesthetics, or were there other reasons?

Hmm, I am quite surprised to see this get any sort of reply, at all. Of course, I have long ceased to expect that the Romantics will get a sympathetic hearing in this forum. Given CAS's love for the likes of Shelley and Keats, it fascinates me that so many individuals who are interested in CAS seem to dislike the Romantics. At least the following example is more rational than a previous commentator's remarks, who laid Fascism at the feet of the Romantics! Anyway....

Quote:

The Modernists didn't despise the Romantics, but they certainly did criticized them for their philosphical confusion(s).

"Despise" may have been too strong a word, but Modernists were very much opposed to the Romantics, by and large, and not merely philosophically but aesthetically. See the critical writings of T. S. Eliot and Ezra Pound, among others. See also their camp followers among the professoriate. In particular, see Eliot's (silly) idea of the "dissociation of sensibility" that the Romantics ostensibly embodied in their poetry.

Quote:

After all, the Romantics, in their lifting up of nature and the imagination, are the same people who hailed the Industrial Revolution, which has steamrolled over the imagination,

Hmm, Blake, Wordsworth, and Shelley hailed the Industrial Revolution? That's news to me.

Quote:

The Surrealists, as far-left wingers (with Dali being a notable exception), 'hated' Pound or Eliot because they leaned to the ideological right.

That was part of it, but they also hated their aesthetics, and certainly Pound's, whom Philip Lamantia once memorably described as a "self-condemned monstrosity". Andre' Breton once mocked James Joyce because he felt that such work "leads only to Lettrism". The Surrealists hated what they considered empty, old-fashioned formalism, and they especially hated it when they saw it sneaking, Trojan Horse-like, into the avant-garde. (The idea that rigorously following the method of "pure psychic automatism" was simply another kind of formalism seems never to have occurred to the Surrealists).

When I say that the Surrealists liked CAS, I should have been more specific: They liked his stories. I've seen no evidence that they had the slightest interest in his verse, which they likely would have found old-fashioned and handicapped by fixed forms.

Quote:

a lot of the hostility that lovers of formalist poetry have for Modernism is that they practiced free verse,

A lot of the hostility derives simply from the fact that, regardless of form, Modernist poetry seems more like prose arbitrarily divided into stanzas, is pretentiously obscure, and contains subject matter that poets such as CAS considered coarse and vulgar.

As for why CAS did not like the Surrealists, I cannot say for certain. I am not aware of any direct statements he made about Surrealism. If we are to judge by his satirical Sonnet Surrealiste, however, I'd say he disliked them because he felt that they embodied many of the same qualities he found in Modernism: Obscurity, nonsense, and formlessness. See, for instance, CAS's brief review of a short volume of Marianne Moore's poetry for a quick overview of the reasons for CAS's dislike of "Modernist decadence".

In sum, I think it is aesthetics, far more than politics, that create the ruptures I indicated, above. There's little sense in arguing about the matter, though, because there is really no way to prove the "cause" of these differences, one way or the other. (It's also getting a little too off topic in the thread; apologies for my role in that).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 24 Feb 11 | 08:11AM by Absquatch.

Dear Absquatch,

I most certainly did not "lay Fascism at the feet of the Romantics", as you so flippantly accuse.

Perhaps if you took the time to read what was written more carefully, you wouldn't have made such an egregiously harmful slur.

I'm an ardent admirer of the Romantics, and was d-e-f-e-n-d-i-n-g them in my post. To reiterate: the Modernist criticism of the Romantics is not my position, but theirs.

As for politics and aesthetics: they are intertwined. So yeah, I'd say there would be plenty of sense in making an argument here. But I won't bother with that, as it'd be a waste of time.

N.

Noivilbo:

Quote:

I most certainly did not "lay Fascism at the feet of the Romantics", as you so flippantly accuse.

We are talking at cross-purposes, here. My reference was to someone else in this forum who once made such an accusation when the subject of the Romantics arose. That's what I meant by "a previous commentator's remarks". I was not referring to you.

Your advocacy of the Romantics was not at all clear from your post. If I misread, then I suspect I am in good company. In any case, my comments about hostility to the Romantics were more general, and not necessarily in direct response to your post.

We agree at least that further argument would be a waste of time, albeit for different reasons. So, discussion over, for me!

Very interesting thread gentlemen - couple of side notes - Henry Reid's excellent satire of Eliot (gosh, is his name Henry - hmm, not sure anymore, getting old), Burnt Norton is a grand example of a modern (aa opposed to modernist) poet who wasn't falling all over himself about old TS -
Also, I always got a bit of a kick out of Pound's take off on the early anonymous verse "Springtime is icumen in..."
And he really was interesting after he went insane - he received an honorary doctorate at a baccalaureate service in the chapel at Syracuse Univ. (my alma mama), and was, unfortunately, seated next to a live microphone at the lectern, while his importance to American Letters etc. etc, were being lauded by the Chancellor from the pulpit -
at every laudatory remark, coming quite clearly over the loud-speaker we heard his definitive word on the matter - in gruff and irritated tones - "Bull Shit" - some 15 or 20 times - unfortunately his keepers hauled him off afterwards, we thought he would have been a hoot at our local purveyor of semi-adult beverages - (cheap beer).

Calonlan,

Ezra Pound is indeed a rich source of unintentional humor, and he demonstrates the level of dignity that most Modernists, in my view, deserve.

One of my favorite anecdotes regarding Pound was by a contemporary American Surrealist, who commented on a late-life interview with Pound conducted by Allen Ginsberg. The Surrealist's note, entitled "Devaluation of the Pound", is worth quoting in detail:

Quote:

Pound defined his work as "stupidity and ignorance all the way through", "preoccupation with irrelevant and stupid things".

"My worst mistake", he added, "was the stupid suburban prejudice of anti-Semitism; that spoiled everything". "I found out after seventy years that I was not a lunatic, but a moron".

Ginsberg, another moron, protested idolatrously, pointing out Pound's "enormous influence" as "a model for a whole generation of poets".

We have said it all along, but from a standpoint very different from Ginsberg's: A whole generation of poets in English have derived their work from stupidity, ignorance, doubletalk and stupid suburban prejudices.

I'd say that ol' Ezra actually had a few lucid moments, late in life. I can also sense CAS nodding his approval from some other dimension.