Random scholarship

[randy_byers]

The cosmic-astronomic element seen here is combined with extrapolations of monsters of classical mythology and with an entire repertory of objects of evil used by Poe, Baudelaire, and the French Symbolists; the whole poem being unified by the central figure of the Hashish-Eater, i.e., "the emperor of dreams" (which figure has its analogies with "the Man-God" of Baudelaire, actually a very ancient concept). This extraordinary poem may have been composed after 1920, but its preview of things to come in later tales owes nothing to Dunsany. Something of its imagery and structure was suggested to Smith by George Sterling's "A Wine of Wizardry", which poem Smith first read in 1907 when he was almost 15, two years after Smith discovered the poetry of Poe.

-- Donald Sidney-Fryer, "On the Alleged Influence of Lord Dunsany on Clark Ashton Smith"

It's amazing what you stumble upon when googling "lemurian sonnets". The title of Sidney-Fryer's article says it all, right down to the "alleged". The Eldritch Dark site also has a huge selection of Clark Ashton Smith's poetry, which seems pretty horribly over-written from what little I've read. Yet there's something almost anthropologically fascinating about it. Who the hell was George Sterling? Was Lovecraft's cosmic horror the product of some vast school of horrible cosmic sonnets? Are the French somehow to blame?

Well, I'm being too glib. I suppose this connects to the Decadents in some way, and I'm just exposing my ignorance. Although I read Baudelaire, Rimbaud, and Mallarmé (in translation) when I was younger! "Generally overlooked is the fact that a great many of Smith's so-called 'tales of horror' are just as much tales of love." There's the Gothic for you in a nutshell. And doesn't it all go back to the Gothic? Weird!

Comments

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Though not knowing much myself about Smith's evolution as an author, I agree wholeheartedly with DSF's point that convergent evolution is not the same as influence. But I think he goes too far, in two respects. First, his description of the differences begins to take the form of egregious Dunsany-bashing. (Then, when he realizes he's doing it, he throws in "I do not mean to disparage the literary achievement of Lord Dunsany," which by that point sounds disingenuous.) Second and both more important and more pervasive, near the end he starts to commit the fallacy of presuming that the existence of profound differences means there are no equally striking similarities.

You don't know from George Sterling? He was the original San Francisco bohemian writer, the founder of the feast, the man who knew everybody. Check any biography of Jack London, or Robinson Jeffers, or any other writer who had anything to do with bohemian literaria in Northern California in the early 20C, and I guarantee you'll find lots of references to Sterling.

[randy-byers.livejournal.com]

I agree that DSF ends up bashing Dunsany in his effort to defend Smith from the charge of writing under the influence. He seems to know a lot more about Smith than he does about Dunsany.

Thanks for the tip on George Sterling. Sounds like a character I should know more about.