HPL's statement is not indefensible, but I do think that he may have been generalizing from too small a sample. Certainly what he wrote was true for himself. On the other hand, H. R. Wakefield wrote one of the nastiest stories possible in "The Red Lodge," and he always claimed that this actually happened. When speaking about a specific set of weird writers, his statements may be more accurate, namely the cosmic. CAS was of course a skeptic about everything, including the claims of science that such and such could not possibly happen as well as stories he heard in Sunday School, but despite his open mind his own critical pronouncements put him essentially in the same camp as HPL. Both writers emphasized that the weird tale was about the phenomena itself and not about the peope in it except as how they reacted to it.
I was a bit hesitant about taking the quote from Frye, since he does use a bit of a technical vocabulary, but I would hardly put him in the category of "a professor with a system," as CAS defined critic in THE DEVIL'S NOTEBOOK. I am suspicious myself of much literary theory; if you have seen my typographically-challenged collection of Lovecraft criticism, A CENTURY LESS A DREAM, you will note that I didn't include any of the Deconstructionalist pieces that Don Burleson and Bob Price had written, because I saw that they were using HPL as an example of how great their technique worked, instead of using poststructuralism to shed new light on HPL's fiction. That being said, CAS himself read criticism (Symons, Machen, Powys, Bierce) and even wrote some of it himself. Frye make a good case that literary criticism is itself a valid artform, and Joshi fought that battle in CRYPT OF CTHULHU back in the 1980s. I regard the purpose of criticism the sharing of what I enjoy with the reasons why, and am fairly eclectic in the approaches I use. I think that there are certain books of literary theory that every CAS or HPL fan ought to know: Terry Eagleton's LITERARY THEORY is perhaps the best introduction, with Northrop Frye's ANATOMY OF CRITICISM running a close second. M. H. Abrams' THE MIRROR AND THE LAMP is a valuable study on Romantic symbolism. Bruno Betelheim's THE USES OF ENCHANTMENT should be self-explanatory. Some other books, not about literature per se, are useful: Otto's IDEA OF THE HOLY, Joseph Campbell's HERO WITH A THOUSAND FACES, Frazer's GOLDEN BOUGH, Jung, Freud (both were lousy scientists but interesting philosophers)--Freud especially on "The Uncanny." And of course there are books about our genre specifically.
Kevin, put that MA to good use: write some essays on what you derive from reading CAS for LOST WORLDS. Contact me off list. Remember, we are a paying market!
Best,
Scott

Well, I do think that HPL's statement is indefensible as a generalization, especially since it excludes one of the cosmic weirdists he most admired, Algernon Blackwood. It's interesting, however, to consider how an author's attitude toward the possibility or impossibility of super-or preternatural phenomena might color his approach to weird fiction. It seems futile, though, to suggest, as HPL did, that more convincing writers might lie in one camp than another. I don't want to make a whale out of a minnow, though, since, as I recall, Lovecraft's statement was really just an aside.

I agree with you that HPL and CAS were in accord that, in cosmic horror and fantasy, human concerns are subordinate, and this is precisely why I love their work so much. I think, though, that their reasons for feeling this way were fundamentally different. HPL's cosmicism arose from his youthful studies in astronomy and his scientific materialism, which placed man far from the center of a vast, meaningless cosmos. In addition to a sense of cosmic vastness, CAS, on the other hand, seems also to have had an almost Eastern--specifically, Zen-like--distrust of human senses and human powers of conceptualization to arrive at the "truth" of anything. Contrast this to HPL's certainty that the cosmos is governed by fundamental laws. For that reason, I cannot really see the two men as holding essentially the same position, for CAS's perspective allows for possibilities that HPL's does not. I do think that both men would agree--although, again, for different reasons--that humanity can know only an infintesimal fragment of the truth about the cosmos, if that. HPL, however, holds that this "fragment" is rather larger than what CAS would allow. As CAS wrote, "[E]verything perceived or conceived as actuality is merely one phase of that which has or may have innumerable aspects. In this phantom whirl of the infinite, among these veils of Maya that are sevenfold behind sevenfold, nothing is too absurd, too lovely, or dreadful to be impossible".

My apologies if I seemed perhaps too relentlessly negative about literary criticism. I want to be clear that honest literary criticism--i.e., criticism that concerns the work or the author in question, and not an onanistic exercise that is really about the critic or his pet theory--can be quite valuable (although I wouldn't go so far as to call it an art form). It is literary theory--or, more precisely, pretentious literary theorists--that annoys me. For instance, I haven't the slightest interest in reading a Derridean deconstruction of The Hashish-Eater, for the simple reason that it would not add one iota to my understanding of, or appreciation for, that magisterial poem. Certain works of criticism that I find illuminating are Mario Praz's Romantic Agony, Julien Gracq's extraordinarily penetrating writings on divers authors (Almost all in French only, sad to say. Gracq himself is also the only prose-poet of the 20th Century whom I consider to be superior to CAS, and, although Gracq's writing is not "weird", I would strongly commend it to anyone who appreciates CAS's elevated style). Roger Cardinal's Figures of Reality: A Perspective on the Poetic Imagination is simply the finest work on this subject that I have read anywhere, and Cardinal is the most elegant stylist of any academic I have read. Samuel H. Monk's classic work The Sublime and Marjorie Hope Nicolson's Mountain Gloom and Mountain Glory are other valuable works. So, there are certainly "fire opals among the potato bin" to be ferreted out, but my experience is that these are the exceptions, and not the rule.

I'm glad to see you mention Otto's book, too, as his notion of the numinous has been seminal for me.

Thanks for the encouragement to contribute to Lost Worlds. In the extremely unlikely event that I find I have something original to say about CAS, I may contribute something, someday. What I really hope and need to do is to resume writing poetry again. Musical activities have taken all my creative energies these past three years, and it is time for a Sabbatical!

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was about to write earlier that Tarkovsky has no
> sense of the cosmic, but that would be untrue. His
> sense of the cosmic is merely a conventional
> God-centered one. . . . Tarkovsky could
> find nothing moving in the nature of the
> confrontation with an unknowable force and in the
> almost child-like futility of our attempt to
> understand it.

While I have not seen Solaris yet, I have been watching Stalker. It is charged with subtle, yet powerful supernatural force. Which reminded me of Blackwood, or perhaps de la Mare (I haven't read enough of him yet).
There is an early scene in the film, when one of the three men decides to set off on his own and approaches a building but is stopped by invisible forces within it. I found it staggering, and it is achieved without advanced special effects, just by camera movements and the poetic perception of the director.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now, I wish that I could find the exact quotation
> by Lovecraft, as I recall that he seemed to make
> the point that materialists' weird fiction was at
> least potentially more effective than that of the
> non-materialists, and that, I think, is rather
> different from the Frye material that you cite--as
> well as, I would continue to insist,
> indefensible.
>
> As for Frye, I'm afraid that he loses me right at
> the beginning, as I have no idea what he means by
> the oxymoronic phrase "true myth". In every
> genuine (is that what he means?) myth that I have
> ever read or heard told, there is, in fact, a
> distinct demarcation between the human and divine
> realms--although, of course, the gods and spirits
> often interact directly with humans. As for
> Penzoldt's observation, it seems to me to be a
> rather banal one, since, as Lovecraft states, the
> weird tale as a literary phenomenon is a child of
> the 18th Century, an era known (at least in
> England) for its skepticism and materialism. So,
> yes, weird tales as a literary genre coincided
> with a reduction in the popular belief in
> supernatural phenomena, but ghost stories and the
> like as part of the oral tradition have always
> been tremendously popular.
> As for the incomprehensible (at least, when taken
> out of context) business of "high mimetic" versus
> "low mimetic", etc., such jargon reminds me of why
> I declined years ago to pursue a Ph.D in English
> following my Master's degree in that subject. When
> it comes to "literary theory" in general, (as
> opposed to genuine literary criticism, which
> focuses on the author and the work, as opposed to
> focusing on the critic and his agenda, his pet
> theories, his jargon, and so forth), I can only
> echo Dr. Farmer's disdainful remarks on the
> subject.

"applause, applause!" - or - in Byron's "Thoughts on a College Examination" -- how critics (students) "...prate 'gainst that which they ne'er could imitate..."

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now, I wish that I could find the exact quotation
> by Lovecraft, as I recall that he seemed to make
> the point that materialists' weird fiction was at
> least potentially more effective than that of the
> non-materialists, and that, I think, is rather
> different from the Frye material that you cite--as
> well as, I would continue to insist,
> indefensible.

Should anyone be interested at this late date, the precise quotation to which you refer is, unless I am gravely mistaken, from Chapter IX of Supernatural Horror in Literature:

"It may be well to remark here that occult believers are probably less effective than materialists in delineating the spectral and the fantastic, since to them the phantom world is so commonplace a reality that they tend to refer to it with less awe, remoteness, and impressiveness than do those who see in it an absolute and stupendous violation of the natural order."

First, I would draw attention to the way Lovecraft very carefully qualifies his statement: "occult believers" are "probably less effective"; they "tend" to refer to it with less breathless tension, etc.

Second: He includes this statement immediately following a line concerning May Sinclair's Uncanny Stories; which, as he goes on to say: "contains more of traditional occultism than of that creative treatment of fear which marks mastery in this field, and are inclined to lay more stress on human emotions and psychological delving than upon the stark phenomena of a cosmos utterly unreal", and it is obvious that it is this "conventional occultism" which elicited this really rather moderate aside. And, within that context, he is certainly correct, as the bulk of those who hold such occult beliefs do see them as simply another part of the natural order; a bit stranger, perhaps, than what one usually encounters, but still seldom something to see as completely disruptive of one's view of reality. It is, rather, the rare case where someone who places a great deal of credence in this sort of occultism manages to nonetheless give these phenomena the sort of impressiveness they require to make classic weird literature.

Still, that particular line has caused a lot of ruckus over the years, and I expect it will continue to do so given the quite notable exceptions such as Blackwood, Machen, and Company....


>
> As for Frye, I'm afraid that he loses me right at
> the beginning, as I have no idea what he means by
> the oxymoronic phrase "true myth". In every
> genuine (is that what he means?) myth that I have
> ever read or heard told, there is, in fact, a
> distinct demarcation between the human and divine
> realms--although, of course, the gods and spirits
> often interact directly with humans. As for
> Penzoldt's observation, it seems to me to be a
> rather banal one, since, as Lovecraft states, the
> weird tale as a literary phenomenon is a child of
> the 18th Century, an era known (at least in
> England) for its skepticism and materialism. So,
> yes, weird tales as a literary genre coincided
> with a reduction in the popular belief in
> supernatural phenomena, but ghost stories and the
> like as part of the oral tradition have always
> been tremendously popular.
> As for the incomprehensible (at least, when taken
> out of context) business of "high mimetic" versus
> "low mimetic", etc., such jargon reminds me of why
> I declined years ago to pursue a Ph.D in English
> following my Master's degree in that subject. When
> it comes to "literary theory" in general, (as
> opposed to genuine literary criticism, which
> focuses on the author and the work, as opposed to
> focusing on the critic and his agenda, his pet
> theories, his jargon, and so forth), I can only
> echo Dr. Farmer's disdainful remarks on the
> subject.

The problem with Joshi is, while he is a fine biographer and scholar, he's a prosaic critic and his philosophical understanding (in his writing) seems hamstrung by his militant atheism. His love of Lovecraft's (and others) cosmicism seems to be an dogmatic extension of his politics rather than an imaginative act.

While there is some truth to his criticism of CAS' tales in HPL: A Life, it is interesting that many of the faults he finds with CAS mirror much of the criticism that HPL's detractors level at Lovecraft (no plots, over-coloured prose, pulpy, etc...), but his main prong of attack seems to be that CAS was motivated to write tales for money... which seems rich coming from a man who has turned Lovecraft into a one-man cottage industry! It reveals a ludicrous belief, the myth of the artist as a pure and unsullied creator that frankly doesn't hold up under any scrutiny. Many creative acts might (wholly or partly) be motivated by money, fame, poontang or anything else... That doesn't necessarily detract from their artistic worth. The fact that Lovecraft and presumably Joshi are privileged enough to remove themselves from the gravity well of earning a living is lovely for them, but rather than berating CAS for having to compromise his 'art' I think it is a testament to him that he managed to push the pulps as far as he did.

I don't wish to appear too hostile to Joshi, as I do respect him and I do think that in general he has been a positive influence on the resurgence of Lovecraft; however he is an opinionated man (in his public guise at least) and shouldn't be blindly accepted.

While my philosophical beliefs naturally lean towards scepticism and Lovecraft, I must say that I have never understood HPL's stance re supernatural fiction and sceptical authors. It really doesn't hold water if put under any scrutiny. I'm afraid that Joshi's own bias means he refuses to question this and continues to apply it to other authors. I'd argue that Lovecraft's view really only applied to himself and he was largely projecting his philosophy upon the genre as a whole. In fairness, when it comes to the details I don't think HPL really pushes his hypothesis too far. He is happy to state it, then move on like nothing happened. Joshi's problem is he's an academic, so he has adopted Lovecraft's opinion like it is a truth. It's not surprising that he finds so many of the heavy hitters in supernatural fiction not entirely to his taste. By applying Lovecraft's theory to a wider genre and other writers he find that they fail to reach his 'weird' criteria: that in effect he is criticising an author and a text for what it is not and not for what it actually is. But, I shouldn't be too harsh, as I think we can all fall into this trap: 'if only this novel did this, then it would be like this...' We want authors to tell the story we want them to tell, rather than letting the story go where it pleases and considering that in itself. It's a hard thing to do, and I more than not fall into the same trap as Joshi and Lovecraft, but as I get older I'm more inclined to enjoy a text for what it is, rather than fall out of love with it for what it is not... If that makes sense?!

I concur with the CAS-Lem comparison. Strangely I've not read Solaris (seen the films of course), but I am familiar with some of his short fiction and yes, (although I confess that I never consciously considered it before) it does share a lot with CAS space fictions... I need to re-read CAS's SF sometime, as it the first time around it didn't really impress me that much; however I think I might have missed some of their irony... Goes to show, you live and learn AND only a fool underestimates CAS! :)

The English Assassin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Joshi's problem is
> he's an academic,

Joshi is an academic? (Hint: He is not.)

> so he has adopted Lovecraft's
> opinion like it is a truth.

This is how academics operate? (Hint: It is not.)

Lovecraft is right, of course, that supernatural fiction becomes boring when the author's own supernatural beliefs are allowed to intrude. Weird literature is predicated on fear and awe of the unknown, not on the detailed cataloguing of the precise hierarchical ordering of the lesser and greater demons.

To The English Assassin:

Yes, I think that is a very common tendency, and I'd almost say it has to be unlearned... in most cases, at least. It took me a while, at any rate, to learn to go into things without any preconceptions (at least as far as the way a story ought to develop, etc., were concerned) and learn to relish a text for itself rather than what I was looking for; the end result, of course, is that I've ended up enjoying a much wider variety of writing (and points of view) than I would otherwise.

Jojo Lapin X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lovecraft is right, of course, that supernatural
> fiction becomes boring when the author's own
> supernatural beliefs are allowed to intrude. Weird
> literature is predicated on fear and awe of the
> unknown, not on the detailed cataloguing of the
> precise hierarchical ordering of the lesser and
> greater demons.

I think this is fairly accurate, in the main. My only qualification would be in applying it too strictly; for with someone with a genuine artistic ability, bringing their own beliefs into the work can strengthen rather than weaken it; it depends on whether they know how to strike that balance and how to pick and choose which elements -- and how much of each -- to include, to increase, rather than diminish, the effectiveness of their writing.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While I have not seen Solaris yet,...

Now I have seen Solaris. Interesting story. Great ending. Weighing over a bit too much on discussions of the human condition. The film sparkles here and there. On the whole, almost as good as Stalker.

Well actually, Stalker is superior. Stalker displays a sense of the weird cinematographically, while Solaris mostly intellectualizes over it.

Jojo Lapin X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The English Assassin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Joshi's problem is
> > he's an academic,
>
> Joshi is an academic? (Hint: He is not.)
>
> > so he has adopted Lovecraft's
> > opinion like it is a truth.
>
> This is how academics operate? (Hint: It is not.)

No, but I'd argue that his approach is immersed in a cod-school of academic-like critical and scholarly approaches. Indeed he's not technically an academic, so he escapes some of the scrutiny that he would otherwise have to undergo. However, I don't care about what his job title is, he is an academic in all but name. His critical approach to Lovecraft seems to be largely an evolution of Marx-based cultural theories, his emphasis is secular and the socio-political... An approach that is ubiquitous in British universities and I'd guess American ones as well. That's not to discount his conclusions, especially re Lovecraft's utopian tales, but it is to say that his approach seems very formal and orthodox to me. Indeed, he is very critical of more personal commentary on Lovecraft, such as Michel Houellebecq's essay, which is what I'd describe as a non-academic approach. Certainly compared to this I'd argue that Joshi is an academic, although that's not to say that he isn't guilty of letting his own personal perspectives influence his own reading of Lovecraft. (Hint: he is in effect an academic)

As for academia in general, I'd argue that the application of most critical theories is the assumption that an academic's chosen theory is correct and then imposing that theory upon any cherry-picked texts that support said academic's arbitrary opinions... That might not describe the standard definition of the classical academic method, but in effect that is what it amounts to. That's not to say that there is no worth to critical or cultural theories or academia in general, but it is basically glorified opinion that as often as not ignores the text... (Hint: You may disagree, but that's just opinion (your truth), as is this (my truth), as I'd argue is academia (their truths), which is all I was saying)

I say this debate is wrought with relativity. No end looms in the horizon. Even though I respect S.T. Joshi for what he's contributed to our knowledge concerning Lovecraft and other plethora's of weird writers, and the kind aid he's given me toward possibly entering the weird fiction field, even though I'm not ready yet. Academic or not, he is merely a person with opinions. Note I used the word person instead of academic, scholar, etc. I'm not using this as an excuse to side with him. There were opinions he held that I strongly disagreed with (both concerning Lovecraft stories and Clark stories). He even said, if I remember correctly, don't quote me on this, but thought Clarks artwork wasn't very good. I think Clarks art work and drawings are remarkable. But they are opinions none the less. Everyone has opinions. If this came from somebody lacking his accolades everyone would either A. ignore or laugh at them, refuting and swatting them away like a common house fly or B. Merge like wolves and tear their flesh from the bone. We should learn to appreciate the things we appreciate and not worry about other peoples opinions. To change others opinions is a difficult, if not impossible, task to undertake.

OConnor,CD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He even said, if I remember correctly, don't quote
> me on this, but thought Clarks artwork wasn't very
> good. I think Clarks art work and drawings are
> remarkable.

Remarkable, to be sure, but also pretty awful. I do not think this is an uncommon opinion.

I am not actually replying to any specific post, but several thoughts occur: First, the notion that Clark's motivation for writing the tails was for money, and this is couched in a pejorative tone, strikes me as way off the mark - In the first place, all authors wish to be published, and get paid for it - Clark got a penny a word, so what might he have received for his short stories? 3-5 dollars maybe, sometimes less, sometimes a little more.
No one on this post has any existential understanding of the penury of his early existence - of course, a few dollars in the 20's meant more than today - Postal workers for example made 24 - 36 dollars a month - my father was called back into the service in 1941 and Staff Sergeant's wages were $28 per month - I am a friend and fan of course, but I do not find any "hack" work in Clark's stuff- obviously some pieces outshine others, no writer is even 100% of the time (although some are universally mediocre), but what has intrigued me over more than 60 years of reading all kinds of Literature in many different languages, is that Clark's work is somehow unforgettable and always rewarding on re-reading - there are so many indelible images that even sitting here at this computer just flood through the mind - his writings never tire - no, friends, however great his needs were, he motivation to write his fantastic tales was not venal - he could have made more money working in the fruit sheds, picking fruit, mucking out stables, cutting firewood (all of which he did intermittently), or he could have wrangled an editorial job at the local paper were he to have suppressed his "daemon" sufficiently to submit to a 9-5 at a desk - just not in his makeup - and thanks be to Cthulhu (or Bacchus) he didn't. As to his artwork - that he never did for the purpose of sale - he drew and painted images relevant to assisting in bringing words into play to visualize his strange worlds - it is my opinion that attempting to compare and contrast Clark with other authors is an act of futility - and for my money, he eats Lovecraft for lunch - As for applying the standard criteria - plot development, characterization et al, you know the tiresome list -- forget it - Clark's work is to savored, like a fine Sherry from a great year - which is perhaps why it is best that almost all his stuff is easily read at single sitting - just the right amount of time to sip the Amontillado and finish the Havana - or so I find it to this day.

While, for my taste, I do find the occasional piece... I won't say "lifeless", but at very least somnolent, this is an exception with Smith's work. I also see flaws here and there in tales which are, overall, quite good or even fine. But a substantial amount of his work is, frankly, of the first water when it comes to conveying a mood, an atmosphere, imagery, impressions, and generally making a subtle, complex emotional impact on the reader. Even if a few of the tales could be labeled "hack work" (which I don't quite agree with), this could easily be forgiven even without regard to his circumstances, given the strange and wonderful gems he also wrought along the way.

As for his artwork... I don't find his watercolors or sketches generally to my taste (though there are some exceptions), but I have always found myself fascinated with a fairly large number of his sculptures, which do have an eerie sort of power. These do feel almost like artifacts from aeons long ago; and, for whatever technical flaws they may have, there is something of the magic of his best tales about the best of these, as well....

The poetry? That truly staggers the imagination....

jdworth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While, for my taste, I do find the occasional
> piece... I won't say "lifeless", but at very least
> somnolent, this is an exception with Smith's work.
> I also see flaws here and there in tales which
> are, overall, quite good or even fine. But a
> substantial amount of his work is, frankly, of the
> first water when it comes to conveying a mood, an
> atmosphere, imagery, impressions, and generally
> making a subtle, complex emotional impact on the
> reader. Even if a few of the tales could be
> labeled "hack work" (which I don't quite agree
> with), this could easily be forgiven even without
> regard to his circumstances, given the strange and
> wonderful gems he also wrought along the way.
>
> As for his artwork... I don't find his watercolors
> or sketches generally to my taste (though there
> are some exceptions), but I have always found
> myself fascinated with a fairly large number of
> his sculptures, which do have an eerie sort of
> power. These do feel almost like artifacts from
> aeons long ago; and, for whatever technical flaws
> they may have, there is something of the magic of
> his best tales about the best of these, as
> well....
>
> The poetry? That truly staggers the
> imagination....

I am largely with you on this - again, as to the artwork (and forgive the typos etc in my previous) in my memory he never brought it our to show people who were visiting - the sculptures, one of which he gave to my mother (name was Dolop - a small head) and another which you see on some of the photos you see on this site, to myself - were items of which he was very proud - to repeat for some of you, the talc he used came from a cut made by the old lime mine railroad which exposed a clearly visible outline of a prehistoric creature quite whale-like - the carvings were done with a Montgomery Ward pocket knife (which he diligently kept very sharp, having received the discipline from his father - very similar to my own - that a man always carried a pocket-knife and always kept all blades sharp - one could hardly call himself a man who did any less), and the carvings were fired in an old wood cook stove out near the big oak -- of these works he was very proud - again, in my several years with him, I never knew him to sell one - he gave them to people he considered what we today would call "extended family" - how stunned he would be to see the large sums which they have demanded - or the amount I was paid by UC Berkeley for the manuscripts he gave me -- probably more than he made in his life including the sale of his property and the sale of the Sterling correspondence. The carvings are, indeed, little masterpieces in their own right, each suggested to him by the shape of the chunk he knocked loose from the railside cliff - strangely, as I remember it, they had a kind of energy and special "feel" when you held them - perhaps they were intended to be held, not merely observed - can't say for sure.