NECROPSY, a sort of on-line version of the late lamented NECROFILE, just published a fine review by S. T. Joshi of these two titles at

[www.lsu.edu]

Scott:

Congratulations on this review and the nomination of SELECTED LETTERS for an IHG Award. I am glad to see S. T. Joshi's assessment of Smith's fiction warming since the days of the HPL biography and his Afterword to Brian McNaughton's THRONE OF BONES.

Jim

Thanks, Jim. S. T. is one of my oldest friends, and I have been working on him for the past few years regarding the quality of CAS's fiction. I agree that it is a secondary facet of his creativity, CAS was first and foremost a poet, but there is still much artistic merit in the fiction regardless of its mercenary origins.
Best,
Scott

I, too, am glad to see that S.T. Joshi's opinion of CAS's fiction is being revised upward. Although I think that Joshi is correct in seeing much of CAS's fiction as an extension of his poetry, and other instances of it as routine hack work, his overall dismissal of it in the HPL biography was quite surprising to me.

I confess that I still have a bit of trouble grasping the basis for Joshi's tastes in weird fiction. For instance, in the HPL biography, he refers to James Blish and, especially, Fritz Leiber as if they are titanic figures in the field, whereas, in an article on Robert Aickman--for my taste, an infinitely better writer of "weirds" than Blish and Leiber combined--Joshi was somewhat harsh with him. My guess (perhaps very much off the mark) is that Joshi doesn't care much for ambiguity and obscurity in weird fiction. He has criticized Thomas Ligotti on that score, as well, but with much greater justification, in my view. At any rate, I'm glad that Joshi is starting to give CAS's fiction its due. I concur with Scott regarding its merits relative to his verse, but the tales themselves contain great swaths of poetry.

I think that one of Joshi's primary problems with Aickman is with his theories about weird fiction (as put forth in the introductions to the volumes of Fontana great ghost stories that he edited). However, I can't reconcile Joshi's squeamishness with Aickman's, Smith's and Ligotti's work with Lovecraft's theories (which seem to have exerted not a small influence on Joshi) about atmosphere in weird fiction. Lovecraft identifies atmosphere as one of the most important elements of a good weird tale, and the aforementioned authors generate atmosphere in spades.
I was unaware that Joshi had reacted so negatively to CAS's prose, though I had known that he was more fond of the poetry. Could anyone summarize what his main criticisms of it are? Anyway, I thought that Joshi's comments on both SLoCAS and Red World of Polaris were very equitable and insightful (as would be expected of a scholar of Joshi's caliber), though I must say that I enjoyed both of the other Volmar stories, probably because I love to indulge in the sheer grotesque exoticism of Smith's sci-fi (even the hackwork).
Speaking of Red World of Polaris, I noticed while reading this work the similarity between CAS's sci-fi stories (and some of his more sci-fi oriented fantasy such as "The Door to Saturn") and the work of the Polish sci-fi writer Stanislaw Lem. They both share a passion for the grotesque and the ironic; traits which are evident especially in Lem's earlier, more light-hearted fare such as his tales of Pirx the Pilot and Ijon Tichy. Anyone else care to comment on the CAS-Lem connection?
-Daniel Harris



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 6 Feb 04 | 12:49PM by .

Daniel,

There's much in your post that inspires thought and potential comment, but, as I'm going out of town this weekend and must depart soon, I'll have to limit myself to the CAS-Lem affinities. The only work I've read of Lem's is Solaris, but it seems to me that what CAS would have appreciated in that great work is Lem's satire of pedantry and, to return to my pet theme, as well ;-), Lem's attempt to portray an entity that is completely alien to human motives, psychology, or comprehension, as well as the sometimes noble, sometimes pitiable, attempts to grasp the nature of, and make contact with, such an entity. In a word, I see the themes of the cosmic and the utterly non-human, and the wicked satire directed at man's attempt to grasp it, as being common elements of Solaris and much of CAS's fiction.

Here, for those who may be interested and who do not have a copy of this (inexcusably) out-of-print volume, are the relevant comments on CAS's prose from S.T. Joshi's H.P. Lovecraft: A Life (1995):

"Smith did not help his cause by churning out reams of mostly mediocre stories of fantasy and science fiction in the late '20's and early '30's, some (perhaps much) of it inspired by Lovecraft, or at least written under Lovecraft's encouragement. This body of work hangs on after a fashion as a very acquired taste, but to me it is incalulably inferior to his verse [...]. If Smith did any good work in prose, it is in the prose poem, some of which Lovecraft admired in Ebony and Crystal". [p. 281]

"Like much of Howard's work, a large proportion of Smith's fiction is routine hackwork, although very different in subject-matter, and because Smith was writing primarily to make money (chiefly to support himself and his increasingly feeble parents), he felt little compunction in altering his tales radically to suit the various pulp markets he cultivated". [p.504]

"Smith's stories also exact widely differing responses. They are overcoloured almost beyond belief--and, to some, beyond tolerance; but while Smith unleashes his wide and esoteric vocabulary without restraint, his plots tend to be simple, even simple-minded. My belief is that Smith's fiction is an outgrowth of his poetry--or, at least, has many of the same functions as his poetry--in the sense that what he was chiefly trying to achieve was a kind of sensory overload, in which the exotic and the outre' are presented merely as such, as a foil to prosy mundanity. There is, therefore, by design little depth or profundity to his fiction; its chief value resides in its glittering surface". Ibid.

"Naturally, some facets of Smith's work are better than others. The Zothique tales may perhaps be his most successful, and some of the tales meld beauty and horror in a very distinctive way. Smith was, in fact, not very successful at pure conventional horror, as for example in his Averoigne tales, which lapse into conventionality in their exhibition of routine vampires and lamias. His science fiction tales have dated lamentably, although "The City of the Singing Flame" [...] is intoxicatingly exotic, while the horror/science fiction tale "The Vaults of Yoh-Vombis" [...] may be his single finest prose work". [p. 505]

Joshi certainly finds much to praise in the work of such authors as Aickman and Ligotti, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise; in fact, I dare say that, if Joshi had found their prose valueless, then he wouldn't have devoted articles to their fiction, at all. My impression is that, although Joshi senses and acknowledges the atmosphere and other admirable qualities in these writers' works, he also finds countervailing flaws that, from his perspective, keep him from praising their work unreservedly. My own sense is that he is too critical of Aickman (and, although I have not read the prefaces to the Fontana volumes that Daniel cites, I do recall that Joshi refers to them with scorn).* For my taste, Joshi's strictures are more applicable to Ligotti. On the one hand, I enjoy some of Ligotti's tales and little prose-poems/vignettes very much, and appreciate his acute and poetic sense of the weird. On the other, I also find there an excessive obscurity, preciosity, and cold over-intellectualism that keep me at arm's length from his work. In addition, I rather dislike the relentlessly defeatist nihilism of the author's world-view that permeates his work, but this is merely my personal opinion.

*Although I cannot recall exactly where, I believe that somewhere Joshi even goes so far as to reiterate confidently HPL's ridiculous statement that the best weird fiction is written by non-believers in preternatural or supernatural phenomena. This assertion is patently absurd. To cite only a few of any number of counter-examples, three of Lovecraft's four "modern masters"--M.R. James, Arthur Machen, and Lovecraft's favorite (despite his criticisms), Algernon Blackwood--all believed in the supernatural to varying degrees, whereas only Dunsany (by far the weakest of the lot, in my estimation) shared Lovecraft's skepticism.

Cooper Square Press is reprinting the Joshi bio in April, so it won't be oop anymore. Hurrah!

Joshi is of course quite entitled to his opinion, but shouldn't he be judging Smith by his best prose work, like The Double Shadow, &c.? HPL churned out some pretty mediocre stuff, only it wasn't printed under his name.

Kevin Shelton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here, for those who may be interested and who do
> not have a copy of this (inexcusably) out-of-print
> volume, are the relevant comments on CAS's prose
> from S.T. Joshi's H.P. Lovecraft: A Life (1995):




Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 9 Feb 04 | 11:01AM by .

HPL churned out some pretty mediocre stuff under his own name, as well (namely the Dunsany pastiches that he wrote earlier in his career. Lovecraft was never meant to write pure fantasy). I'd have to agree with Scott that it seems Joshi isn't focusing on Smith's better prose. Also, I don't agree with Joshi's criticisms of Smith's plots. In Lovecraft's work, plot is often times nearly absent (such as in "At the Mountains of Madness"). This is not to criticize Lovecraft, as I don't believe that plot is the sole reason to read a story(after all, I enjoy Peake's Gormenghast novels). Rather, in Lovecraft's work plot is merely a vehicle for the communication of cosmic obsceneties, which is the real reason many of us read HPL's work in the first place. There is no need for the plot to be anything more than skeletal.
The same is true of CAS; plot is not a means to an end, it is a vehicle for Smith's creation of fabulously decadent and morbid worlds. I do think that in some of CAS's finer prose work (the Hyperborea, Zothique and Poesidonis cycles), CAS's plots are quite original and incorporate devices such as irony to an extent rarely found in fantasy. Also, CAS usually avoids resorting to the standard good vs. evil quest plot. However, I would have to agree with Joshi in that the extent to which a reader is interested in the cosmic, the outre, and the exotic will determine their enjoyment of Smith.

On the Smith-Lem connection, though it is apparent in Solaris I think it is even more obvious in some of Lem's work in the short form, such as Memoirs of a Space Traveler, as well as some of his earlier novels like Eden or Return from the Stars. I would encourage CAS fans to hunt these titles down (it's not too difficult to procure his works second-hand).

Finally, on Ligotti's work, I think that almost all the tales in Songs of a Dead Dreamer and most in Grimscribe are excellent, but I did not enjoy as many of the stories in Noctuary, though credit must be given for "Mad Night of Atonement" and "Ms. Rinaldi's Angel." If anything, Ligotti suffers from harping on the same theme excessively, especially in his newer work, where he really seems to be treading water. Though In a foreign town, in a Foreign Land was enjoyable, his endless references to "great pigs wallowing in their own blackness" have become self-parody in My Work is not yet Done and especially Crampton. However, he is still one of my favorite authors and I hope to see him return to form in the future.

Joshi has revised his opinion of CAS in the latter's favor since writing those remarks, and has done invaluable work in unearthing CAS' juvenile fiction. This latter has revealed that the young CAS had mastered such things as plot, so that if latter stories do not use as such then it must be a deliberate choice.
Regarding weird fiction and skepticism: Bierce was also a skeptic, as were REH, George Sterling and of course CAS (who was even skeptical of skepticism itself! William Hope Hodgson was also a free thinker. As for Machen and Blackwood: while both were believers, neither was by any means a conventional believer, while IMO the ghost stories of M. R. James reveal a tension between an outward semblance of belief and inner doubts as to the existence of a just and loving deity overwatching mankind. James also stated for the record that he had no particular belief in ghosts, although once again this is subject to some doubt.
Best, Scott

Scott:

Quote:

Joshi has revised his opinion of CAS in the latter's favor since writing those remarks, and has done invaluable work in unearthing CAS' juvenile fiction.

I figured that this must be the case, and I'm glad to hear it. I've read somewhere--perhaps in this forum--that Joshi was first exposed to CAS's stories via the science fiction in Tales of Science and Sorcery--one of CAS's poorest collections--and that this initial negative impression somewhat tainted his opinion of CAS's tales as a whole. No matter. It would be nice, though, if, for the forthcoming reprint announced above, Joshi would revise his comments according to his current perspective. I suspect, though, that such revisions may be too expensive to undertake, even if Joshi were inclined to do so.

Quote:

Regarding weird fiction and skepticism: Bierce was also a skeptic, as were REH, George Sterling and of course CAS (who was even skeptical of skepticism itself! William Hope Hodgson was also a free thinker. As for Machen and Blackwood: while both were believers, neither was by any means a conventional believer, while IMO the ghost stories of M. R. James reveal a tension between an outward semblance of belief and inner doubts as to the existence of a just and loving deity overwatching mankind. James also stated for the record that he had no particular belief in ghosts, although once again this is subject to some doubt.

Perhaps I should have stated my point more clearly. Lovecraft claims, in essence, that mechanistic materialists write better weird fiction than do believers in the "occult" and the like because, for the former, the violations of the "laws" of ordinary space and time seem more stupendous to those who believe in them, as opposed to those whose sense of reality is more fluid. For the latter, there is no real sense of the "weird", because the "weird" depends first upon a norm, and then on a violation of that norm. In any case, I was not referring to "skepticism" as it pertains to conventional religious belief, at all. In addition, the point isn't to array the materialists against the non-materialists, but to demonstrate the patent absurdity of Lovecraft's formulation. I haven't the slightest doubt that mechanistic materialists write excellent weird fiction--Lovecraft, for instance!--but I would hardly draw a line between the quality of work of either party based upon of their view of the nature of reality, as Lovecraft does.

A propos of the particular authors in question:

Arthur Machen and Algernon Blackwood believed in occult phenomena and in a spiritual dimension of existence. Both inveighed often in their writings against the persistent materialism of the age.

M.R. James stated for the record that he was open-minded on the subject of ghosts' existence, and that he would impartially consider any evidence on the subject brought before him. As the preface to the Oxford U.P. collection Casting the Runes indicates, however, in private, James may well have admitted to believing in ghosts. Further, as a practicing, believing Xtian, he would also have to accept, among other dogma, the doctrines of the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus, either of which by itself would suffice to place him within the non-mechanistic materialist camp.

As for CAS himself, he was certainly a skeptic of any conventional dogma, but that includes mechanistic materialism, as his letters and essays make abundantly clear. (It's too bad that, as his letters reveal, CAS was so reluctant to debate with HPL on the subject. Perhaps CAS realized that, if he did so, he would receive a twenty-page screed on the subject via return mail, and preferred simply not to bother!). CAS's open-mindedness on the nature of reality itself makes me quite reluctant to place him among the "non-believers" as I have used the term here (again, defined as materialists who believe that the universe proceeds according to fixed, natural laws discernible by human reason, and that that is all there is to the matter).

Daniel:

Quote:

HPL churned out some pretty mediocre stuff under his own name, as well [...]

And Joshi would be the first to acknowledge that fact, as his biography of HPL makes plain. Joshi even goes so far as to state that (I'm paraphrasing from memory here), if HPL had stopped writing before 1926, he would most likely scarcely be known today--much too harsh a judgment, in my view. In the end, though, I gather Joshi feels that HPL wrote enough stellar fiction over his entire career that, overall, the balance is very much in HPL's favor. At the time Joshi wrote his comments on CAS in the Lovecraft biography, he seems not to have felt that way about CAS's fiction. I'd be interested to know what proportion of CAS's fiction Joshi had read when he wrote these comments.

A propos of Lem and CAS: Solaris is all that I've read of Lem, so, as I mentioned, I cannot comment on any other works of his. If the books and tales you mentioned are even closer in theme to CAS than Solaris, however, then I'll eagerly seek them, as the parallels between Solaris and CAS's perspective are extremely obvious to me.

An aside regarding Solaris and Tarkovsky's film of the book: Tarkovsky's compulsion to change the entire theme of Solaris from the possibility of understanding of, and contact with, something utterly alien and inhuman to a study of--once again--human relationships suggests that either some individuals simply have no understanding of the theme of the cosmic and the non-human, or find it so alien, and perhaps terrifying, to their sensibilities that, when they get their hands on a work dealing with that theme, they must mutilate it almost beyond recognition.

Ah, Tarkovsky's Solaris. Yes, Tarkovsky certainly did a number on the theme of the novel, in order to fit it into his unrepentantly humanist perspective. In fact, Tarkovsky is a good example of a man who was firmly opposed to the materialistic and who relentlessly asserted that man's primary existence is spiritual. Unfortunately, this made him completely unqualified to adapt any of Lem's works for film. However, I would not impeach the rest of the Tarkovsky canon, as Stalker is one of the most moving science fiction movies I have seen and one of the few movies that really drives home the tragedy of what man has lost to materialism. Also, Andrei Rublev consists of some of the most beautiful images committed to celluloid. Anyway, apologies for going slightly OT.
-Daniel Harris

I think that off-topic digressions are permitted here from time to time!

I've seen only a few Tarkovsky films, and, oddly enough, Solaris is my favorite so far. I just try to forget that it is supposed to have anything to do with Lem! It is a testament to Tarkovsky's artistry and sense of the poetic that the film moves me deeply, even though it runs very much counter to my own philosophical instincts. Of course, it is also much too long; the whole "Mother/Mother Russia" fever dream is awful, and could be cut in its entirety to the film's benefit. The ending, though, is quite touching, although I can see why it revolted Lem. Also, the performance of the actress who played Hari was what we would call "Oscar-worthy".

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. My impression from Lem's comments on the film is that he resented, and found inexplicable, the fact that 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. Instead had to make a Dostoyevsky-esque drama of guilt and redemption in order to involve himself emotionally in the narrative.

Kevin Shelton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

Quote: Perhaps I should have stated my point more
> clearly. Lovecraft claims, in essence, that
> mechanistic materialists write better weird
> fiction than do believers in the "occult" and the
> like because, for the former, the violations of
> the "laws" of ordinary space and time seem more
> stupendous to those who believe in them, as
> opposed to those whose sense of reality is more
> fluid. For the latter, there is no real sense of
> the "weird", because the "weird" depends first
> upon a norm, and then on a violation of that norm.

I am currently rereading Northrop Frye's ANATOMY OF CRITICISM, and came across the following which I think is germane to our discussion: "In a true myth there can obviously be no consistent distinction between ghosts and human beings. In romance we have real human beings, and consequently ghosts are in a separate category, but in a romance a ghost as a rule is merely one more character: he causes little surprise because his appearance is no more marvellous than many other events. In high mimetic, where we are within the order of nature, a ghost is relatively easy to introduce because the plane of experience is above our own, but when he appears he is an awful and mysterious being from what is perceptibly another world. In low mimetic, ghosts have been, ever since Defoe, almost entirely confined to a separate category of 'ghost stories.' In ordinary low mimetic fiction they are inadmissible 'in complaisance to the scepticism of a reader,' as Fielding puts it, a skepticism which extends only to low mimetic conventions." This is a part of his discussion of Aristole's theory of modes. From the rest of the discussion it seems to me that what he is that in a naturalistic ghost or weird story, one in which the hero is neither superior to others nor to nature but recognizably lives in the same world that we do, the appearance of a ghost or other weird event runs counter to the beliefs of the reader and the hero of what is possible in the real world. This isn't all that different from what HPL said. Also, Peter Penzoldt in THE SUPERNATURAL IN FICTION opined that the rise of the ghost story coincided with a decline in the belief in ghosts. Best, Scott

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.

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.

I agree with you and CAS on knives--every man ought to carry one, at all times, and keep it in working order. I have mine with me most of the time. However, I'm not particularly good at sharpening.... I have a sharpening stone, but no one seems to agree on the best way to go about the business...the angles, the directions, oil vs. dry, etc.--and my father sure as hell doesn't know how, so I'm out of luck there ;)

Very impressive that CAS did such wonderful carving with one knife! I'd love to try it, only I don't know where to get stone, nor which sorts are the best. I've considered trying whittling, as well--surely a small block of wood could yield a grotesque head or idol? But then it wouldn't have the horrifyingly immemorial quality of stone....

K_A_Opperman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree with you and CAS on knives--every man
> ought to carry one, at all times, and keep it in
> working order. I have mine with me most of the
> time. However, I'm not particularly good at
> sharpening.... I have a sharpening stone, but no
> one seems to agree on the best way to go about the
> business...the angles, the directions, oil vs.
> dry, etc.--and my father sure as hell doesn't know
> how, so I'm out of luck there ;)
>
> Very impressive that CAS did such wonderful
> carving with one knife! I'd love to try it, only I
> don't know where to get stone, nor which sorts are
> the best. I've considered trying whittling, as
> well--surely a small block of wood could yield a
> grotesque head or idol? But then it wouldn't have
> the horrifyingly immemorial quality of stone....

The old whetstone for sharpening straight razors is best - no oil - spit on it - then rub in an elliptical motion with the back of the blade slightly elevated so there is just a bit more pressure on the side you are sharpening - for large item (axes, shovels, picks, machetes, et al) the old stone wheel, pedal turned was far and away the best - easier to control than the constant speed power grindstone - after all, even the best surgeon's scalpel is not as sharp as the cave man's flint knife - and flint knives have been re-introduced just a few years ago for micro-surgery - but a really sharp pocket knife will cut paper held loosely in the air - One of my favorite scenes from an old movie - don't remember the name of it - has Richard the Lionheart confronting Saladin and shows the strength of his steel blade by whacking an iron bar in half - Saladin respond by tossing a silk veil into the air and letting it drift across his Scimitar, quietly dividing in half - ah, Damascus steel, if only we knew how. By the way, the best pocket knife you can buy in general is the one made for the Boy Scouts of America - really high quality. In Clark's day Montgomery-Ward (wonder how many of our correspondents ever heard of the first great catalog company?) made first class stuff - and, indeed, Clark's knife was ordered from the catalog, which, once the year was out found its continued use in the Outhouse - and oh, how we hated the "slick pages"!

If I remember correctly, in one of his books Jack Vance described an knife made of proteon. The edge is so sharp that it consists of only a single string of molecules. It cuts through wood like soft butter. And it's impossible to touch it without cutting yourself.

Farmer,

Thanks for the sharpening advice. I've heard of the elliptical method, and will try it shortly. I own no large blades--yet--so will not require a wheel. Hmmm...I do have one pretty big one--but it's still a knife--but it dwarfs my tiny sharpening stone! (which I think is really meant for touch-ups).

I have experimented in knapping, but only with glass--which lots of people do, actually. I have knapped 5 glass arrowheads, which I suppose could be utilized effectively in a pinch. Obsidian, I hear, is of similar hardness, but I haven't tried it. In future, I'd like to knapp a 'primitive' stone knife--but that requires a much higher skill level than I currently possess.

That Jack Vance knife sounds pretty scary.... Honestly, I wouldn't want to own one.... Merely drop it on your lap and you could loose a whole leg--or worse!

K_A_Opperman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Farmer,
>
> Thanks for the sharpening advice. I've heard of
> the elliptical method, and will try it shortly. I
> own no large blades--yet--so will not require a
> wheel. Hmmm...I do have one pretty big one--but
> it's still a knife--but it dwarfs my tiny
> sharpening stone! (which I think is really meant
> for touch-ups).
>
> I have experimented in knapping, but only with
> glass--which lots of people do, actually. I have
> knapped 5 glass arrowheads, which I suppose could
> be utilized effectively in a pinch. Obsidian, I
> hear, is of similar hardness, but I haven't tried
> it. In future, I'd like to knapp a 'primitive'
> stone knife--but that requires a much higher skill
> level than I currently possess.
>
> That Jack Vance knife sounds pretty scary....
> Honestly, I wouldn't want to own one.... Merely
> drop it on your lap and you could loose a whole
> leg--or worse!

I don't know where you can get high grade obsidian in California - surely somewhere - but at Paulina crater in Eastern Oregon there is a massive slope on the crater wall of the finest obsidian found anywhere -has been mined by our ancestors time out of mind.

Farmer,

I would love to get my hands on the stuff--someday. But I haven't been doing any of that lately. It requires a dedicated area, and I don't have one. I suspect I will get back into it in the future, at which point I will seek out some suitable stone. I'd prefer the adventure of finding it myself, but if I must, chunks of obsidian can be easily ordered online. Good to know the 'finest obsidian found anywhere' is only a state away from me....

You want rare? Try getting a mineral called poppy jasper. The only place on Earth it can be found is in Morgan Hill California USA