Hmm, it appears that someone needs a refresher in what the confirmation bias actually is.

Quote:

But when the echo chamber of Lovecraftian fandom starts repeating the notion that HPL was a purely cosmic writer and a staunch rationalist, then an objective reassessment, in my view, becomes necessary

I am not sure to whom this particular straw man notion refers, but it certainly isn't attributable to me. I've never claimed that Lovecraft is "purely" anything, and neither, I'll wager, has anyone else who is knowledgeable about him and his work.

As to the reference to an "objective reassessment", I can only hope that this is intended as a joke.

One other note about Callaghan's assertions and strategy. On the one hand, he seeks to view Lovecraft through the lens of an obsolete and mostly discredited form of psychology; in other words, through a theory. Then, later, he adduces facts about Lovecraft's behavior (albeit in highly loaded and emotive language) as if they were instances of res ipsa loquitur (literally, not legally).

Neither approach is the least bit persuasive: The first relies on arguments whose premises are highly dubious(Freudian psychology), and the second tries to dispense with argument, altogether.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 5 Dec 11 | 04:18PM by Absquatch.

The English Assassin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's definitely a lot of extrapolation going on
> here... Ignoring the point about the harm your own
> observations (poor or otherwise),
> I see no certainty to your diagnosis, nor am I
> sure that HP's nihilism and pessimism were a)
> avoidable (let's make no assumption about free
> will), and b) harmful. It seems to me that HP's
> found a certain affirmation and even, to some
> extent, comfort in his philosophy without
> resorting to the delusions of the ant hill. They
> might not have bought him an easy happiness, but
> I've heard nothing of his existence that doesn't
> suggest that he faced the disappointments of life
> and the agonise of a prolonged death with anything
> less than fortitude and dignity. Lovecraft may
> have had problems (don't we all), but he certainly
> wasn't a basket case.

I agree that HPL did the best he could with the materials at hand; and indeed, regard his nihilism and pessimism toward life as a defense mechanism, adopted due to unavoidable circumstances. It is hard, indeed, to see what else he could have done. In terms of purely objective standards, however, neither nihilism nor pessimism are realistic or healthy. They do sometimes result in some great art/poetry, though.

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am not sure to whom this particular straw man
> notion refers, but it certainly isn't attributable
> to me.

It refers to Joshi's assertion that HPL represents "the most secular writer of modern times" (paraphrase from poor memory.)

Gavin Callaghan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> At what point in any matter (evolution, economic
> theory, politics?) can certitude ever be said to
> be reached? On this matter, I have great
> confidence in the general outlines of my theory.
> Objectivity in matters of truth should never be
> mistaken for neutrality; in matters of truth, one
> is allowed to be positive. I am a proponent of my
> theory.
>
> This, of course, is why there are disagreements
> between people of opposing viewpoints: as there
> should be.


On the last statement, I agree with you: "Nor [let] dogma diffuse its shade", as HPL put it in "To an Infant". However, there is a distinct difference between asserting one's belief in one's position, and making such an ex cathedra pronouncement as this:

> When HPL leapt up from his desk in his school
> classroom in a chorea-like fit, his face a mass of
> uncontrollable tics, and had to be removed from
> school, he was revealing a very real, and very
> important, mental conflict in his life, a conflict
> which would come to color both the trajectory of
> his personal life, and the peculiar contours of
> his weird-fiction. HPL’s nihilism and pessimism
> were self-inflicted, and did a far greater injury
> to himself than my poor observations could ever
> have done.

In the essay, the dogmatic approach can be given some leeway, as it was (as I understand it) only one among several essays taking a number of approaches to Lovecraft and his writings. But the comment above is quite a different matter and, removed from such a context, is simply a dogmatic statement of a personal belief (a hypothesis at best, not having enough genuine supporting evidence to be considered a theory; similarities are not identities); and, as I said, the very loaded phrasing here makes that all the more obvious. By that I mean such as "his face a mass of uncontrollable tics", which is simply a gratuitously grotesque (and therefore dehumanizing) image; hyperbole which harms any validity your thesis may have by its very exaggeration. A more measured use of terms, as I say, could get the point across better without undermining the point you are trying to make.

As it stands, such a statement is no more helpful than (as the popular phrase has it) "Howard was a twitch" or the equally nonsensical "HPL was the greatest writer ever!".

jdworth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By that I mean such as "his face a mass
> of uncontrollable tics", which is simply a
> gratuitously grotesque (and therefore
> dehumanizing) image; hyperbole which harms any
> validity your thesis may have by its very
> exaggeration. A more measured use of terms, as I
> say, could get the point across better without
> undermining the point you are trying to make.

I do not agree, and must point out that I was stating simple fact. HPL's symptoms were grotesque [according to Murray's interview with Brobst, they terrified his classmates]; HPL himself said his tic-symptoms were uncontrollable; and they did involve his face [witnesses, indeed, called them "seizures", which suggests complete neuro-muscular-motor contraction.] HPL's symptoms also required his subsequent removal from school. There is nothing wrong with my statement.

The only way or reason I could/would retract my statement, would be if Jdworth were to adduce some reason why Murray/Brobst, or the classmate with whom Brobst spoke, could or should not be believed.

Gavin Callaghan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jdworth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > By that I mean such as "his face a mass
> > of uncontrollable tics", which is simply a
> > gratuitously grotesque (and therefore
> > dehumanizing) image; hyperbole which harms any
> > validity your thesis may have by its very
> > exaggeration. A more measured use of terms, as
> I
> > say, could get the point across better without
> > undermining the point you are trying to make.
>
> I do not agree, and must point out that I was
> stating simple fact. HPL's symptoms were
> grotesque ; HPL himself said his tic-symptoms were
> uncontrollable; and they did involve his face
> HPL's symptoms also required his subsequent
> removal from school. There is nothing wrong with
> my statement.
>
> The only way or reason I could/would retract my
> statement, would be if Jdworth were to adduce some
> reason why Murray/Brobst, or the classmate with
> whom Brobst spoke, could or should not be
> believed.

We seem to be addressing two different things here. Let me approach it a little differently, and see if this clears things up:

I do not dispute the facts of HPL having such problems with tics, nor that they were at least largely responsible for his removal from school. It isn't the facts with which I have a problem. (Though, as I said, it still remains an assumption that this was due to his psychological state, rather than a physical cause, or perhaps even a combination of the two.)

What I am addressing is the phraseology itself, which is, I think, harmful to what you are saying. Instead of being simply a statement of fact, the choice of words caricatures: "a mass of uncontrollable tics" (emphasis mine)... conjures up "his face was a mass of feelers" or somesuch; the image it brings to mind is a dehumanizing caricature reminiscent of Lovecraft's (or even Derleth's) worst prose.

Perhaps this was a deliberate choice, and you meant to reflect such imagery. If this was the case, then I would argue that this becomes a part of that mythologizing of Lovecraft, rather than getting away from that to the person which lies beneath.

I realize that the statement was not a part of the essay (which is actually, as I recall, much more measured in its use of terms), but it is nonetheless so closely connected to it that I think this rather derisive (whether intentionally or not) tone in the phrasing is likely to prejudice people against your hypothesis; and, as I said, a more measured choice of words would still get across what you are saying without that effect.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 25 Dec 11 | 01:21PM by jdworth.

Reasonableness in this matter a lost cause, jd. I know from personal experience that, when Callaghan starts addressing you in the third person, you have now become The Enemy, to be combated by all available, and all irrational, means.

On the causes of tics:

Quote:

Causes
Emotional factors were once viewed as the cause of tics, but this explanation has been largely discounted. The search for causes now focuses on biological, chemical and environmental factors. As of 2002, however, no definitive cause of tics has been discovered.

There appear to be both functional and structural abnormalities in the brains of people with tic disorders. While the exact neurochemical cause is unknown, it is believed that abnormal neurotransmitters (chemical messengers within the brain ) contribute to the disorders. The affected neurotransmitters are dopamine, serotonin, and cyclic AMP. Researchers have also found changes within the brain itself, specifically in the basal ganglia (an area of the brain concerned with movement) and the anterior cingulate cortex. Functional imaging using positron emission tomography (PET) and single photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT) has highlighted abnormal patterns of blood flow and metabolism in the basal ganglia, thalamus, and frontal and temporal cortical areas of the brain.

Vulnerability to tic disorders appears to be genetic, or transmitted within families. Genetic factors are present in 75% of cases, although no single gene has been found to cause tic disorders. Researchers have not found a pattern suggesting that certain types of parenting or childhood experiences lead to the development of tic disorders, although some think that there is an interaction between genetic and environmental factors. Researchers are paying close attention to prenatal factors, which are thought to influence the development of the disorders.

Source

Very interesting. I haven't been able to keep up with the research in these fields the way I'd like, so I appreciate you posting the information. Perhaps I'm overdoing it, but I wonder if this reopens the possibility that his chorea-like symptoms might have been connected to that head injury he (apparently) suffered when young. I think the connections between emotional states and the severity of such symptoms -- and the feeling of relief when not restraining them -- is a very interesting aspect of this, and it would be interesting to see how this ties in with the structure of consciousness as a process of the functioning (or malfunctioning) brain....

On your earlier post... if so, that would be a pity; for, despite my disagreement with some of Gavin's conclusions and his approach here and there, I still think the essay has much to offer....

You're welcome. The scientific investigations are still in embryo, but the hypotheses proposed above about the causal factors for tics seem much more plausible to me than mere psycho-emotional ones.

I may be wrong about Callaghan's future approach to your interactions, but my own history with that person suggests otherwise.

As for the merits of his essay, that is another area where we'll have to agree to disagree. The science, psychology, and literary theory underlying the essay are all state-of-the-art for 1940, but, unfortunately for Callaghan, we are living in 2011.

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> but, unfortunately for Callaghan, we are
> living in 2011.

Unfortunately for all of us... :)

No, I like it!

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Finally, amid all this flurry of enthusiasm for
> literary criticism and other pattern-seeking
> (actually pattern-making) activities, let's not
> forget the wise words of Clark Ashton Smith,
> himself:
>
> "Explanations are neither necessary, desirable,
> nor possible."

Compared to a century ago, I believe that today criticism dominates the social room much more. It causes an aloofness which I don't think is desirable. Personally I wish that people would use their energies more for creating fantastic things than for writing about what others have created.

I don't mean to pour cold water on the discussion. I do read some criticism, it can be educative, and especially a shortcut to finding great things. I admit I have not read Gavin Callaghan's lengthy essay, or the argumentative replies; I have been too tired and my eyes feel worn out from other research.

Nevertheless, relating to CAS's words, I found the following epigraphs refreshing:

The highest state that man can achieve is that of astonishment; and when a primary phenomenon astonishes him, he should be satisfied. It cannot give him anything higher, and he must not look for anything more beyond it; this is the frontier - Goethe

In the end it is the mystery that lasts and not the explanation - Sacheverell Sitwell