M.R. James and Lewis Carroll
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
ALICE, a distant relative of Lewis Carroll's (born some 21 years after
Carroll's death) wrote to the Daily Telegraph to complain that Potter's
depiction of Carroll as a man infatuated romantically (or predatorially
depending upon your viewpoint) with young girls should be dismissed
because it cited no factual evidence of sexual relations with Alice
Liddell.
This was Potter's response:
"Sir,
Mr Philip Dodgson Jaques protests to you about the 'misleading' nature
of my television play Alice. He offers instead a grossly implified
picture of his great uncle Lewis Carroll, apparently content to follow
the lead of the family biographer Stuart Dodgson Collingwood in
suppressing the secret of the admited 'disappointment' which shadowed
the life of this great writer.
My play showed Lewis Carroll as a man of great piety and courage
resolutely overcoming the 'unholy thoughts which torture with their
very presence the fancy that would fain be pure'. I believe that his
beautiful stories and reactionary politics both spring from the same
source and canot see why it is a disservice to explore the complexities
of character which so often accompany unusual talent in a writer.
Surely this is better than reducing Lewis Carroll to the level of a
fairy-tale simpleton eternally imprisoned by nursery walls?
Dennis Potter"
Interestingly, fellow dramatist Jonathan Miller explored a Freudian
interpretation of this classic literary debate in his own sixties
version of ALICE IN WONDERLAND (1966). Miller then adapted M.R. James'
WHISTLE AND I'LL COME TO YOU just two years later.
James' relationship with Jane McBryde, daughter of James' closest
'companion' and probable lover James McBryde, led to his authorship of
THE FIVE JARS, a novel which bears many key similarities to ALICE IN
WONDERLAND. The fundamental difference is that whereas in ALICE a child
must imbibe a forbidden liquid to become small enough to enter the
animal world, in THE FIVE JARS an adult partakes of secret elixirs to
become childlike. In many other respects, one could argue quite easily
that James used ALICE as the basis for his own novel.
Another similarity between the two men and their books occurs off the
page (this is in addition to both men being academics, bachelors and
admirers of children). In Gwendolen McBryde's LETTERS TO A FRIEND
(1956), which details letters sent by M.R. James to her young daughter,
we learn that not only have an unknown number of letters been edited by
McBryde, but that some have been omitted altogether. This fact was
mourned by James' biographer Michael Cox in his book M.R. JAMES: AN
INFORMAL PORTRAIT (1983). Indeed, Cox appears to express scepticism
over their alleged disappearance, claiming he wad told they were
"apparently lost". A similar fate befell Carroll, when his literary
heirs commissioned the scholar Roger Llancelyn Green to author an
official biography in 1969. Green stated in his preface that:
"I have been permitted to read every word of the diaries."
Unfortunately it transpired that Green had been duped by literary heirs
with a vested interest in misrepresenting Lewis Carroll. In 1982 Green
revealed via a letter to The Times that he had not in fact seen the
diaries, rather, that he had been permitted to read only those entries
which his client had typed up for him. When the diaries were eventually
published unedited it was shown that he had indeed been quite seriously
misled, not least in having not been informed about a tortuous
'nameless guilt' which Carroll confessed to. However, because it has
since been established that Green wilfully distorted other facts in
order to portray Carroll in a rose-tinted and flattering light, it does
not much matter either way: Green would have tampered with the facts
come what may.
This curious incident illuminates the lengths that some people will go
to in order to prevent legitimate literary criticism; perhaps
unsurprisingly, it is usually always those who have vested interests in
the matter who seek to thwart such exploration. At least in the case of
Carroll we have since had full disclosure: the diaries have been
published, so the critics and analysts can get at the facts and decide
for themselves. Alas with James we have naught to rely upon except
letters edited by someone who has an obvious vested interest in
portraying James as someone who does not have an unhealthy sexual
attraction to minors; indeed, the non-release (or possible destruction)
of any unpublished papers can only hint at secret-keeping. However,
despite this odd state of affairs, the Freudian issues flagged up by
mainstream dramatists such as Jonathan Miller, Lawrence Gordon Clark
and Anthony Powell are sufficient in themselves to clearly indicate
that just as with ALICE, there is enough on the written page to justify
further rigorous analysis.
Perhaps as M.R. James' star continues to rise, as typified by the BBC's
dedication of Christmas Eve ghost-story telling to England's greatest
ghost story teller, mainstream scholars will turn their attention to
this interesting matter, and help illuminate a mystery which those
ferocious keepers-of-the-flame, the ardent Jamesian Apologists, wish to
keep at arm's length. For unhappily a small few have vested interests
in preventing such analysis and thus seek instead to bamboozle, thwart
and deny legitimate literary analysis. The lesser pity is that they
exert a stanglehold over such matters, representing James's literary
estate, the Ghost Story Society and the 'official' M R James fan club;
the greater one is that James' work does not as a consequence receive
the analysis it so richly deserves.
Chris Barker
The Haunted River
http://hauntedriver.co.uk
Brett
Brett
would've been a very interesting one.
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
Brett wrote:
> As an addendum, if you had left out the last paragraph your post
> would've been a very interesting one.
Thank you. But one can hardly refer to the Alice Apologists (the name
by which they are known) and then ignore the Jamesian ones.
Seeing as you generously offered an opinion, pray let me return the
favour. Clearly it is in the interest of any Apologist to try and cast
aspersion on those who seek to portray the object of their veneration
in an unflattering light. Therefore it is neither factually wrong nor
personally vindictive of me to point out that those Apologists with
obvious vested interests persist in trying to thwart unflattering
critical analysis. However, it *is* wrong of those same Apologists to
try and dismiss such observations on vindictive and personal grounds.
Yet this shouldn't be about personalities, it should always be about
issues.
Broadly speaking, there are two schools of thought, though one refuses
to tolerate the other. Some people think that M R James was a happily
celibate bachelor who had no sexual hang-ups; others believe that his
ghost stories, together with incidents from his private life, hint
quite strongly at homosexual / paedophiliac tendencies.
Now, I believe that the Apologists are intolerant because they refuse
to acknowledge this other school of thought; furthermore, they also
possess powerful and indisputable motives for doing so (financial and
reputation). Thus we have an obvious motive for the intolerance and
misrepresentation. It doesn't bother me particularly that the
Apologists have no reasonable argument in reply beyond vindictive
personal abuse, but it does bother me that some people appear to
support those who stand in the way of legitimate critical analysis.
There are potent sexual undercurrents in many of the most powerful
books ever written. In our own genre, the work of Bram Stoker, Robert
Aickman and J.S. Le Fanu often seethes with ambiguous eroticism. No
matter how macabre or deviant their own particular brand of sexuality
might be, we eagerly welcome critical analysis of their work because we
are comforted by the crucial fact that each of these adult writers
appears to have been attracted to fellow adults. The disturbing thing
about M.R. James is that he appears to have been attracted (whether
romantically or sexually) to adolescent boys and pre-pubescent girls.
So it is precisely because of the fact that paedophilia is one of the
great taboos that the Jamesian Apologists cannot tolerate the same
degree of critical analysis of his work.
Up until now I have commenting about the facts and issues. I will now
however express a personal opinion. I think that most people would
argue that it's unethical to thwart critical analysis because of a
vested business interest, but I believe that in this case it is also
morally wrong. Why? Because paedophilia is a serious issue and
shouldn't be swept under the carpet because of a business interests.
Going further, I believe that when Apologists with vested interests try
to dismiss concerns about paedophilia with intolerant and abusive
arguments, they become implicated themselves.
The similarities between M R James and Lewis Carroll are striking on
many levels. The accepted mainstream view is that Lewis Carroll was
emotionally immature and that he was romatically and sexually attracted
to pre-pubescent girls. This doesn't detract from the brilliance of
ALICE IN WONDERLAND; in fact, knowing and accepting all of this helps
us understand the work all the better. I believe that M R James will
come to be regarded in a similar light, and that future critical
analysis of his work will link the ghost stories to his similarly
repressed paedophiliac tendencies.
CB
John Pelan
<haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Nonsense from a perverted little jackanapes. Your lurid fantasies and
homophobia are of no interest to anyone.
No one gives a fuck about your opinions, Barker. You are incaple of
rational thought and your literary criticism is of the Beavis and
Butthead level.
2001-05-24 Chris Barker / Haunted River reveals:
"Before I slid into this genre I was starting up on a career of
comedy script-writing."
2004-01-22 Chris Barker / Haunted River taunts:
"It isn't xenophobic to be anti-American, it's just good manners."
2004-01-21 Chris Barker / Haunted River admits:
"I've never once been to America."
2003-06-19 Chris Barker / Haunted River confesses:
"I make no claim to be a publisher, writer, or editor."
2001-05-28 Chris Barker / Haunted River advises:
"'Think before you type' might be a wise idiom for you to adopt."
2003-11-12 Chris Barker / Haunted River further confesses:
"I'm not a great fan of concrete logic. I prefer to explore the
fringes of the unknown."
2004-01-25 Chris Barker / Haunted River criticises another poster:
"Your comments are illogical."
2004-02-19 Chris Barker / Haunted River sees mental illness all
around:
"Not only are you mentally deranged..."
2004-01-30 Chris Barker / Haunted River confesses his lack of
knowledge about mental illness:
"I wouldn't dare to presume knowing much about mental illness"
2004-02-17 Chris Barker / Haunted River melodramatically muses:
"Is it just me, or does your obsession with control-freakery,
enforced doctrine and history re-writing mirror the Stalinist
purges?"
2004-01-24 Chris Barker / Haunted River wonders:
"Why do you always have to be so bloody melodramatic?"
2003-02-26 Chris Barker / Haunted River approves of invective:
"I support the use of invective against oneself, or indeed a
combatant"
2004-01-25 Chris Barker / Haunted River disapproves of invective:
"These people manage to air their views without drenching all
comments in overheated invective & unpleasant profanity."
2004-01-30 Chris Barker / Haunted River practises invective:
""Posting handle" my foot. May I respectfully suggest you insert
posting handle into your rear passage"
2004-02-09 Chris Barker / Haunted River abuses:
"You sad, childless, ignorant pervert."
2004-01-29 Chris Barker / Haunted River claims:
"No one can seriously accuse me of being abusive."
2004-02-04 Chris Barker / Haunted River diagnoses psychotic
behaviour:
"I use different names on places like Ebay to escape the obsessive
and deranged attentions of a raving psychotic like you."
2004-02-04 Chris Barker / Haunted River claims he is normal:
"normal people like me..."
2004-03-02 Chris Barker / Haunted River claims higher knowledge:
"I say things because I *know* them to be true."
2004-02-02 Chris Barker / Haunted River divulges:
"I can confirm that I only reveal my real name to someone I know or
trust."
2004-01-29 Chris Barker / Haunted River warns:
"Seriously, do not believe in anyone who's existence cannot be
independently validated."
2001-05-24 Chris Barker / Haunted River on paranoia:
"Please be assured that I am not overly paranoid, despite what the
entire population of the UK say (though those bastards won't dare
say it to my face....!)."
2004-02-18 Chris Barker / Haunted River claims:
"If it wasn't for me, abgf, the M.R. James Newsletter, Horrabin Hall,
Haunted Bookshelf and All Hallows would be quieter and emptier
places."
2004-03-02 Chris Barker / Haunted River gives his opinion of
alt.books.ghost-fiction members:
"Most of you are vicious snakes. And I don't trust snakes."
2004-01-22 Chris Barker / Haunted River berates us all:
"Jesus, you people are sick, sick, sick. No wonder the internet's
going down the pan."
And of course there's...
The Toad & the Stoat
A Play of Pamphleteers & Lawyers in One Act
Dramatis Personae:
Christopher Notchbynder (A Pamphleteer)
Abernathy Stoat (A "retired" Solicitor)
A Publician
A Chorus of Inebriates
The Scene: Christmas Eve in Barkerville, most families and those with
a place to go are at home enjoying a blazing hearth and ghost stories
on the BBC… But not everyone is of such a mind… For some, the lure of
litigation is strong…
CN: Mr. Stoat, Mr. Stoat; I need a solicitor!
AS: And what've you done now? Wife catch you looking at porn on the
internet again? Bothering the tourists with your pamphlets?
CN: No, nothing like that… I've been libeled, horribly libeled! I want
to sue!
AS: Well, let's start with a bit of retainer, har-har… That's right,
another one, on second thought, make it two of these… On the lad here…
CN: Don't you want the details?
AS: No, I want a bloody drink first! (Downs first glass). Alright
then, what's the trouble, libel, you say?
CN: It's the CONSPIRACY!!! They're all in it… The publishers, the
writers, all of them! They've libeled me on the internet! They said I
was a sonofabitch, that I stole books, that I'm a forger, a pervert, a
jackanapes…
AS: Go on, that's what all this pile of paper is, then?
CN: (sniffling) And they called me a toad! I want my 'pology or I want
to sue!
AS: Here, lean over by the light… A toad is it? Har-har! Spot on that
was! Har-har! Oh, sorry, mate… Let's have a couple more and see what's
in these papers. There are stiff penalties for libel, you know.
CN: "Stiff"? Did you say "stiff" hee-hee-hee!
AS: What's this, this Pelan chap says you're a bad writer and can't
sell your work; this should be easy to disprove, what've you sold?
CN: (Looks at floor)
AS: This Roden fellow says that you offered to loan him dust jackets
if he'd ask his wife to publish your stories. Is that true?
CN: (Looks at floor)
AS: And Anderson, he says that you were warned about selling
non-existent books on the internet? Is that true?
CN: (Looks at floor)
AS: And this Merry Jubilee Tinwhistle says you're a moron that can't
sell beaks. Is it true that all your stock catalogs are in your attic
because no one can be bothered to look at them?
CN: (Looks at floor)
AS: And these, have you really written a series of essays accusing
famous writers of being pederasts and drunks? Nasty-minded sort of
bloke, aren't you?
CN: But it's true, all of it… James wrote about stiff sheets and hairy
mouths! Blackwood was always going on about walks in the woods, what
sort of nastiness do you suppose he might've been getting up to with
no one watching?
AS: Sounds like you're whipping out some odd theories, mate?
CN: (starting to giggle) Did you say "whipping out"?
AS: I did. Now back to your pile of papers. There's no hard proof of
any libel here.
CN: (rocking back and forth) "Hard", did you say "hard"? Hee-hee-hee…
AS: Stop that! What the bloody hell are you doing! Put that back in
your pants! Barkeep, barkeep! Help!
AP: You again! Out you go (drags CN away Stage Right)
Sounds of brief struggle
AP: Third time this month… How many times do I have to tell you not to
get him excited like that. He's got a good two miles to walk and
there's not a sheep in the neighborhood that will be safe when he's in
a state like that.
AS: Merry Christmas! The wanker left his wallet! Let's all have a
drink on good old Notchbynder! Bless us every one!
Lesmond
That wasn't you, was it?
--
Even now in Heaven there are angels carrying savage weapons.
Lewis Mammel
Lesmond wrote:
> Even now in Heaven there are angels carrying savage weapons.
Innnnnnteresting. Reminds me of the way I felt as a kid in the
fifties. All the talk was of "Juvenile Delinquents" as in Hot Rods
from Hell, and I conceived of Juvenile Delinquency as some sort
of inevitable reality soon to be accomplished by my organic
development, loathe though I was to relinquish the Eden of my
puberty.
Knowing this, you might understand how deeply I identified
with Jerry Lewis in The Delicate Delinquent.
"Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted
in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!"
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
the Horror Writers Association, a proven liar, and a notoriously
intolerant bully who appears to possess an less than healthy interest
in sado-masochistic horror. You won't need to be told that he is also
obsessive; the bizarre nature of his post already points to an unhinged
mind.
Only a fornight ago I challenged Pelan to sue for me repeating my claim
that he is a liar who was openly condemned by his former ISP for making
false claims. The cheapskate was too mean to put his money where his
mouth is, so has been calling in favours from a friend, asking him to
put the squeeze on me. But as I told this other aspiring author, Pelan
is a liar - and a bully, with an unhinged mind - so one is entitled to
repeat the claim publicly. Fortunately this friend slinked off into the
night when he discovered that Pelan had even lied to him about one
particular issue....
So, apologies to all that my attempts to once again start a decent
adult conversation have been ruined by John Pelan dropping his trousers
to make obscene gestures with his ill-endowed appendage. The fact that
he has close links with the Jamesian Apologists, as well as a personal
interest in perverted horror himself, provides his motive.
Christopher Barker
http://hauntedriver.co.uk
> on the BBC... But not everyone is of such a mind... For some, the lure of
> litigation is strong...
>
>
> CN: Mr. Stoat, Mr. Stoat; I need a solicitor!
>
> AS: And what've you done now? Wife catch you looking at porn on the
> internet again? Bothering the tourists with your pamphlets?
>
> CN: No, nothing like that... I've been libeled, horribly libeled! I want
> to sue!
>
> AS: Well, let's start with a bit of retainer, har-har... That's right,
> another one, on second thought, make it two of these... On the lad here...
>
> CN: Don't you want the details?
>
> AS: No, I want a bloody drink first! (Downs first glass). Alright
> then, what's the trouble, libel, you say?
>
> CN: It's the CONSPIRACY!!! They're all in it... The publishers, the
> writers, all of them! They've libeled me on the internet! They said I
> was a sonofabitch, that I stole books, that I'm a forger, a pervert, a
> jackanapes...
>
> AS: Go on, that's what all this pile of paper is, then?
>
> CN: (sniffling) And they called me a toad! I want my 'pology or I want
> to sue!
>
> AS: Here, lean over by the light... A toad is it? Har-har! Spot on that
> was! Har-har! Oh, sorry, mate... Let's have a couple more and see what's
> in these papers. There are stiff penalties for libel, you know.
>
> CN: "Stiff"? Did you say "stiff" hee-hee-hee!
>
> AS: What's this, this Pelan chap says you're a bad writer and can't
> sell your work; this should be easy to disprove, what've you sold?
>
> CN: (Looks at floor)
>
> AS: This Roden fellow says that you offered to loan him dust jackets
> if he'd ask his wife to publish your stories. Is that true?
>
> CN: (Looks at floor)
>
> AS: And Anderson, he says that you were warned about selling
> non-existent books on the internet? Is that true?
>
> CN: (Looks at floor)
>
> AS: And this Merry Jubilee Tinwhistle says you're a moron that can't
> sell beaks. Is it true that all your stock catalogs are in your attic
> because no one can be bothered to look at them?
>
>
> CN: (Looks at floor)
>
> AS: And these, have you really written a series of essays accusing
> famous writers of being pederasts and drunks? Nasty-minded sort of
> bloke, aren't you?
>
> CN: But it's true, all of it... James wrote about stiff sheets and hairy
> mouths! Blackwood was always going on about walks in the woods, what
> sort of nastiness do you suppose he might've been getting up to with
> no one watching?
>
> AS: Sounds like you're whipping out some odd theories, mate?
>
> CN: (starting to giggle) Did you say "whipping out"?
>
> AS: I did. Now back to your pile of papers. There's no hard proof of
> any libel here.
>
> CN: (rocking back and forth) "Hard", did you say "hard"? Hee-hee-hee...
>
> AS: Stop that! What the bloody hell are you doing! Put that back in
> your pants! Barkeep, barkeep! Help!
>
> AP: You again! Out you go (drags CN away Stage Right)
>
> Sounds of brief struggle
>
> AP: Third time this month... How many times do I have to tell you not to
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder wrote:
> Welcome to the psychotic ramblings of John Pelan, an embarrassment to
> the Horror Writers Association, a proven liar, and a notoriously
> intolerant bully who appears to possess an less than healthy interest
> in sado-masochistic horror. You won't need to be told that he is also
> obsessive; the bizarre nature of his post already points to an unhinged
> mind.
>
> Only a fornight ago I challenged Pelan to sue for me repeating my claim
> that he is a liar who was openly condemned by his former ISP for making
> false claims. The cheapskate was too mean to put his money where his
> mouth is, so has been calling in favours from a friend, asking him to
> put the squeeze on me. But as I told this other aspiring author, Pelan
> is a liar - and a bully, with an unhinged mind - so one is entitled to
> repeat the claim publicly. Fortunately this friend slinked off into the
> night when he discovered that Pelan had even lied to him about one
> particular issue....
>
> So, apologies to all that my attempts to once again start a decent
> adult conversation have been ruined by John Pelan dropping his trousers
> to make obscene gestures with his ill-endowed appendage. The fact that
> he has close links with the Jamesian Apologists, as well as a personal
> interest in perverted horror himself, provides his motive.
>
> Christopher Barker
> http://hauntedriver.co.uk
>
Actually, as an addendum to this, I think it's about time John Pelan
was taken down a notch or two.
A few days ago his wife was stabbed on her way home. When some of his
friends expressed their sympathy for this unpleasant experience, he
thanked them before quickly slipping in a few plugs for his latest book
ventures. This reaction was rather surprising. And now, instead of
either devoting his time to caring for his convalescing wife, or in
trying to catch the villain who committed this crime, he logs on to the
internet to pursue an obsessive vendetta against someone whose greatest
'crime' is to disagree with him about book matters.
Pelan appears to bear a greater grudge against someone who has
challenged his dubious genre expertise than against a violent criminal
who attacked his wife. He would do well to stay away from the internet
for a very long time, and spend that time in helping his wife regain
her health and on other attendant matters. He must have wasted months
of his life thusfar in harrassing me via dedicated abuse groups
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bad_Mr_Toad/) or in posting obsessively
in usenet groups.
I doubt that John Pelan has anything useful or insightful to say on the
subject of Lewis Carroll and M.R. James, hence his incontinent and
unscholarly outburst. Even if he had, one might wonder at his
priorities, given his current home commitments. But for him to spend
time pursuing a personal vendetta at such a time, just to try and
'spoil' a potentially interesting discussion for everyone else, well,
it would appear to indicate that Pelan's inate egocentricity and
potential for malice was severely underestimated.
CB
Robin Low
>> http://hauntedriver.co.uk
>>
>
>Actually, as an addendum to this, I think it's about time John Pelan
>was taken down a notch or two.
>
Utterly insane. It doesn't take a professional to realise that all of
you involved in this lunacy have some serious mental health issues. No,
really, I mean it; this isn't just some flippant insult. You are
genuinely scary nutters. It's gone light years beyond being just
unpleasant and pathetic.
Of course, I could be wrong, and you're all just obsessive, vicious
bullies with nothing better to do with your time.
(Why am I bothering to post to people to who never, ever listen? Am I
now as ill as they are? Have I been corrupted by their diseased drivel?)
I suppose I might apologise if someone could explain to me just what the
fuck *any* of this has to do with alt.horror.cthulhu.
--
Robin Low
Phil Payes
see...it's all about.....
INSANITY.
and we all eagerly read it...much like the human cattle that breaks its
neck when passing by a horrific car crash.......everyone needs a little cow
now and again..
"Robin Low" <ro...@celephais.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:O9rXm0Ce...@celephais.demon.co.uk...
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
thread, the original post *was* very interesting. It's just a pity that
we can't discuss interesting literary theories without the 'Apologists'
gate-crashing the party and stomping over everybody. Now, I agree that
the controversial comments occured in the last paragraph, but they were
salient: the Jamesian 'Apologists' *do* aggressively seek to thwart
discussion of this nature. You've just seen proof, in John Pelan's
response. The big question is, Should we desist from discussing
interesting literary theories just because some people get very angry?
A Lovecraftian example: imagine if HPL *was* really a closet racist.
Imagine if he really did hold extremely intolerant views, and supported
the genocide of all non-whites. Now, if you as a student / fan / reader
wanted to explore those issues because you thought they hadn't been
properly aired, would it be right for those with strong vested business
interests in HPL to suppress such speculation? Would it be right for
them to browbeat you via a campaign of malicious persecution?
Obviously the answer to both those questions would be 'no'. If they
wished to disagree, they should do so via reasoned, intelligent debate.
The situation viz-a-viz M.R. James and Lewis Carroll is no different.
It was not my original post that did any harm, for there was little
offensive in it, though it did raise one or two controversial issues;
no, the harm was done - is always done - by the ill-tempered and
intolerant response from someone who is fast carving himself an ugly
reputation.
CB
PS. I apologise if you think a thread discussing Carroll / James should
not be posted in ahc. I think most people reading these fantasy and
horror groups have overlapping interests, which is why I cross-posted.
Andy68
1. M. R. James' fame. Yes, among people who like horror, he is well
known. But to the general public, he is not at all as known as Lewis
Carroll, and probably never will be. Perhaps the lack of interest in
his sex life, or lack thereof, is due to his lack of widespread fame
rather than due to a conspiracy of his apologists.
2. The power of his apologists. M. R. James is in the public domain.
A quick look at Amazon shows that he is available from Oxford Press,
Penguin, Dover. Those are just the ones currently in print available
from Amazon; out print copies from other publishers are also available,
not to mention that his work can be found in text files on line.
(http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/8486) His apologists, as you call them,
cannot control his work - it is in the public domain. Therefore, they
cannot control his reputation. Anyone can write anything they want
about M. R. James and publish it; no one can stop them
3. The ability of James' sex life to hurt book sales. People have
been saying Lewis Carroll was a dirty old man for as long as I can
remember. That didn't stop a variety of production companies from
making movies based on Alice, nor does it stop people from buying and
reading the book.
If you've got something to say about M. R. James, why don't you write
it, print it, publish it, and advertise it? People who are interested
will buy it; people who aren't won't.
Andy68
James is still under copyright in Europe until 2006, but in the public
domain in USA (I'm in Los Angeles). Nevertheless, as to point 2, you
can still write anything you want *about* M. R. James - he aint gonna
sue.
Joanne Marinelli
"Andy68" <another...@gay.com> wrote in message
news:1124223801....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
with bemused disinterest, as Carroll's actual or possible pedophilia is
irrelevant, just as Henry James's potential or actual homosexuality
threatens to put this master of ambiguity in the modern cache of gay and
lesbian works.
Not that homo-eroticism doesn't help the educated reader, it does, but it
rather lessens great writers to peg everything they do to their own fucked
up psychology.
I'd apply that argument to Carroll as well. If he was a pervert, he's a dead
pervert, whose work appeals to and delights many.
The work itself tells the good critic why, even if the biography picks up on
what themes motivated the creator.
My apology to the horror folks. I am not much in the genre, and to prove
Andy's point, I've never heard of MR James.
Joanne
Tom Alaerts
> Andy's point, I've never heard of MR James.
You don't need to be a real fan of the genre to appreciate MR James.
These stories are much subtler than most horror today, with many hack
writers trying to emulate Stephen King's style. I suggest to try a
cheap paperback collection.
all best,
Tom
Joanne Marinelli
"Tom Alaerts" <came...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:430269e4$0$20459$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
I'll take that into consideration Tom, thank you.
Joanne
Al Smith
> with bemused disinterest, as Carroll's actual or possible pedophilia is
> irrelevant, just as Henry James's potential or actual homosexuality
> threatens to put this master of ambiguity in the modern cache of gay and
> lesbian works.
I agree with you, the information is mildly interesting as
background on the life of the writer, but has no significant
bearing on the book. It's obvious that Lewis Carroll loved Alice.
How he loved her is less important. If we start worrying about the
sins of dead artists, we'd never be able to enjoy any of their works.
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
issue of putting an artist's work into some sort of context. Dennis
Potter, Joe Orton, George Orwell - it helps to assess these people's
work if we know something about their private lives and motivations. A
greater part of the romance comes from biographical and critical
exploration. My interest in Shakespeare is motivated more by his life
and times than by his plays, only a few of which I have read.
Perhaps those who never pursue English Lit as a part of formal study
are happier with just the published works. But I suspect that those who
have studied English beyond the basic minimum requirement have been
indelibly stamped with the need to put everything into some sort of
context, and like to read biographies and literary assessments of any
given author in conjunction with the original texts.
CB
Joanne Marinelli
"Carnacki The Ghost-Finder" <haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124269227.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
But I suspect that those who
> have studied English beyond the basic minimum requirement have been
> indelibly stamped with the need to put everything into some sort of
> context, and like to read biographies and literary assessments of any
> given author in conjunction with the original texts.
>
> CB
>
You are right, up to a point. I am an amateur Jamesian scholar, and know
more about Henry James than does the average lay reader. However, New
Critics tend to lose sight of James popularity as a writer when getting
enthused about how his sexual orientation *subverts* the traditional
Victorian bonds within the text. This is sexy thesis making, and not even
wholly inaccurate, but it leads to the danger that everything James wrote
should be interpreted according to an underlying same sex tension, when
there is so much more going on in his masterpieces.
A number of professors object to my objections, I'll add in all fairness,
but they haven't convinced me that this penile preoccupation is as much
about publishing critical works against type as anything else, a form of
Jamesian reinvigoration.
I just simply do not see what new insights pedophilia adds to Alice In
Wonderland as opposed to comparing it to Peter Pan. Both stories are fantasy
literature for children. I will qualify this by adding that I am not a
particular Carroll aficionado and cannot debate you on biographical details
of any sort--but you lose sight of what he achieved in order to deconstruct
what he might have been, and I'd be hard pressed to say I enjoy Alice more
or less due to speculation as to its author's sexual proclivities. I doubt
that his physical desire is what gives his work mass appeal.
Joanne
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
Joanne:
I think our wires have crossed somewhere. I was originally referencing
Montague Rhodes James, not Henry James. Montague James authored thirty
or so very superior ghost stories at the turn of the last century, and
on the strength of them is generally acclaimed to be England's finest
ghost story writer. He also wrote an intriguing fantasy novel called
THE FIVE JARS which bears comparison with ALICE IN WONDERLAND. Montague
Rhodes James taught at Eton College and Kings College, Cambridge, where
he also spent his entire adult life.
A number of critics have drawn Freudian conclusions about the violent
nature of his ghost stories, where children are often the victims.
Contemporary recollections from those who knew James support the view
that he was very probably homosexual, and that as an adult, he actively
pursued romantic flirtations with young adolescents. Thus the
terrifying nature of the ghost stories may in part be explained by
suppressed sexual desire (or they could be subtle sadistic fantasies,
or they could be just coincidental).
I've tried to explore some of these issues in the following essay:
http://hauntedriver.co.uk/monty_james.html
http://hauntedriver.co.uk/demons_essay.html
If you like Henry James, then perhaps you'll like the novel THE
HAUNTING OF LAMB HOUSE by the late Joan Aiken. It's a novel spanning
successive generations, fictionalising the ghostly experiences of
writers Henry James and E.F. Benson, who successively inhabited Lamb
House in Rye. As I am sure you are aware, Henry James and E F Benson
authored several ghost stories themselves in between novel writing.
Miss Aiken wrote THE HAUNTING OF LAMB HOUSE after the National Trust
commissioned her to write a full length novel of a supernatural novel;
she told me that they were so upset when she chose Lamb House that they
pulled out of the deal (they wanted her to chose one of their large
houses which pulsate with book-buying visitors). Anyway, she chose LH
because of the Benson and (Henry) James connections and because it is
reputed to be haunted, and went and published elsewhere.
Henry James, E F Benson, M R James - all appear to have been attracted
to 'the love that dare not speak it's name', yet each dealt with it in
different ways. Today we quite rightly read less into sexuality issues
because homosexuality is no longer illegal and gay people are justly
respected as individuals with equal rights. But a century ago it was
deemed a very serious crime which could ruin a man, as it did Oscar
Wilde. It is for this reason that the issue is important to the critic,
because living with constant fear and guilt greatly affected many
artists and writers.
TTFN,
Chris
Joanne Marinelli
Nada. I knew you meant MR, but used HJ as an example. Too much
deconstructing isn't always a good thing. Post-modernism, after all, has
been declared dead. But carry on. The extent of my contribution is at this
point complete. I have not read MR and only slightly familiar with
Carroll--and if you are concerned with the merits of imitation, or MR's debt
to Carroll, then I'd take Andy's advice and write an article.
I hope to do a few myself in the literary genre before I'm dead. Three
maybe. Two involving disability themes in the classics, and one on Italian
modernism. For me and my level of discipline that is ambitious.
I am both a creative writer and a so-so freelancer in terms of getting paid.
Lit crit is hard work and doesn't pay unless you have academic support. I
don't.
Best,
Joanne
Ian
> "Carnacki The Ghost-Finder" <haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
some meaningless drivel snipped>-
>
> > CB
> >
>
> You are right, up to a point. I am an amateur Jamesian scholar, and know
> more about Henry James than does the average lay reader. However, New
> Critics tend to lose sight of James popularity as a writer when getting
> enthused about how his sexual orientation *subverts* the traditional
> Victorian bonds within the text. This is sexy thesis making, and not even
> wholly inaccurate, but it leads to the danger that everything James wrote
> should be interpreted according to an underlying same sex tension, when
> there is so much more going on in his masterpieces.
>
Joanne
This must be given the coveted Best Laugh of the Week Award!
Joan, ahem, the subject is M R James, i.e. Montague Rhodes james
and not HENRY James .....
Ian
"There is only one thing more hilarious than the pretentious
prattlings of literary experts, and that is watching a literary
expert jamming his foot in his mouth...."(Oscar Milde, in a speech
to the Unemployed Dorset Plumbers Association, 24th December, 1998)
Joanne Marinelli
"Ian" <su...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:20050817.1...@flash.net...
> Joz...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > "Carnacki The Ghost-Finder" <haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> some meaningless drivel snipped>-
> >
> > > CB
> > >
> >
> > You are right, up to a point. I am an amateur Jamesian scholar, and know
> > more about Henry James than does the average lay reader. However, New
> > Critics tend to lose sight of James popularity as a writer when getting
> > enthused about how his sexual orientation *subverts* the traditional
> > Victorian bonds within the text. This is sexy thesis making, and not
even
> > wholly inaccurate, but it leads to the danger that everything James
wrote
> > should be interpreted according to an underlying same sex tension, when
> > there is so much more going on in his masterpieces.
> >
> Joanne
>
> This must be given the coveted Best Laugh of the Week Award!
> Joan, ahem, the subject is M R James, i.e. Montague Rhodes james
> and not HENRY James .....
>
"A voice of reason amid the cacophony! I have been following this discussion
with bemused disinterest, as Carroll's actual or possible pedophilia is
irrelevant, just as Henry James's potential or actual homosexuality
threatens to put this master of ambiguity in the modern cache of gay and
lesbian works.
Not that homo-eroticism doesn't help the educated reader, it does, but it
rather lessens great writers to peg everything they do to their own fucked
up psychology.
I'd apply that argument to Carroll as well. If he was a pervert, he's a dead
pervert, whose work appeals to and delights many.
The work itself tells the good critic why, even if the biography picks up on
what themes motivated the creator.
My apology to the horror folks. I am not much in the genre, and to prove
Andy's point, I've never heard of MR James."
I never confused the two authors. I was making a point using my knowledge of
HJ. Look before leaping, eh?
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
cruel to deride the apparent wire-crossing as you did.
I suspect your crush on John Pelan is affecting your behaviour because
you appear to be employing some of his unpleasant posting methods. Or
could this be a simple case of drunkeness? You often claim to post
messages whilst inebriated.
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
What sort of disability? Mental or physical? There are plenty of
examples where disability is treated as something shameful. I'm not
aware of many examples from classical literature where a disabled
person has been treated positively.
Plenty of mental derangement in literature of course. It's interesting
that in Jane Eyre the hero Rochester is made blind because of his
attempts to care for a mentally deranged woman. Also interesting how
manipulative men have used the diagnosis of mental illness to
incarcerate troublesome women e.g. The Woman In White.
I'm working on a fictional piece to do with mental disability at the
moment (well, *obvious* mental disability).
CB
Joanne Marinelli
> Thanks for the correction.
>
> What sort of disability? Mental or physical? There are plenty of
> examples where disability is treated as something shameful. I'm not
> aware of many examples from classical literature where a disabled
> person has been treated positively.
>
purity. Comparing this with Zola's willingness to use physical crippling to
portray demonization interests me a great deal. When you throw Maupassant
into the mix it begins to get delightfully complicated.
Henry James also created Rosy to thankfully challange Dickens' Tiny Tim, so
forth.
I have not laid the groundwork for serious critical study in this area, but
still hope to, and many scholars have encouraged me to pursue my comparative
ideas.
If you like you can join my group, or just lurk. We've been quiet for a
while, but it is a repository for my interests, as well as other members.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisabilityinArts/
Joanne
Jack Campin - bogus address
> a disabled person has been treated positively.
Teiresias, Philoctetes, Oedipus. It's hard to think of a classical
example of disabled character who *wasn't* treated positively.
> I'm working on a fictional piece to do with mental disability at
> the moment (well, *obvious* mental disability).
Socrates and Mohammed for what seem to have been epileptic auras.
Hildegarde of Bingen for migraine hallucinations.
Bipolar disorder seems to be endemic among mythological heroes.
You spend years at a time in a cave talking to nobody and living
on a diet of weeds and shellfish, get the call and spend a year
leading an army into battle under the spell of your heroic
oratory, then it's back to munching mussels in the dark.
Or look up the Renaissance concept of "melancholia" for a view of
depression that rates it as almost entirely beneficial.
============== j-c ====== @ ====== purr . demon . co . uk ==============
Jack Campin: 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland | tel 0131 660 4760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/> for CD-ROMs and free | fax 0870 0554 975
stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, & Mac logic fonts | mob 07800 739 557
Christopher Roden
any, and every, newsgroup that might, just possibly, relate to the
topic; but tonight, while reviewing Michael Cox's comments on M. R.
James's ghost stories, I re-discovered the following footnote on p.
149 of M.R. JAMES: AN INFORMAL PORTRAIT: [Any emphasis is mine]
'It is misguided to approach the ghost stories as if they were
examples of the highest artistic or literary endeavour. They are
amongst the best of their kind; but it is easy to claim too much for
them, AND EVEN EASIER TO IMPOSE ON THEM A WEIGHT OF CRITICAL ANALYSIS
AND SPECULATION THAT THEY CAN HARDLY BEAR. A clever professional
psychoanalyst, with some justice, OR A FOOLISH AMATEUR ONE, WITH NONE,
MAY DISCERN SIGNIFICANCE IN CERTAIN IMAGES, NAMES OR SITUATIONS, for,
as Algernon Blackwood once remarked, 'the subconscious always
dramatizes.' BUT THIS IS TO MISS THE POINT AND CHARACTER of Monty's
stories: TO DWELL ON THEM AS VEHICLES OF UNCONCSIOUS PSYCHOLOGICAL
REVELATION, TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, is to view
them THROUGH A DISTORTING GLASS.'
Well said, Michael!
Christopher
Jim Rockhill
precious and tenuous, relying as it often does on "proving" something about
the writer's biography via the fiction, then redirecting that "evidence"
right back toward the fiction again. This approach, though not completely
discredited, was already coming under increasing attack as passe' and
inherently dishonest no later than the 1970s. To offer one example, critics
of THE TURN OF THE SCREW adopted, argued, then rejected this method prior to
moving on to another ages ago. It certainly is not cutting edge, as some
would have us believe.
Jim
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
huw....@gmail.com
Huw
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
You mean that your opinions about M R James are entirely summed up in
one quote by one person?
Cox's book on James is admirable for many reasons, but it's Achilles
heel has always been its lack of robust literary analysis. Like Nigel
Kneale, Cox begs us not to subject James' work to the same scrutiny
that is applied elsewhere to every other writer precisely *because* he
can see where it will lead. After all, you don't need to be a doctor of
literature to deduce what all that Jamesian imagery might signify.
Cox's view is that of a romantic who doesn't want to be told that
Father Christmas isn't real. He urges us *not* to explore these issues
because he fears it will ruin the romance. Taking a more extreme
perspective, one could argue that Cox is shielding him. But either way,
that's simply Cox's view, not universal truth.
My own belief is that we would learn more about James and appreciate
his fiction from a different perspective if we explore these issues. I
also think it encumbent upon Jamesian 'societies' to promote all forms
of analysis rather than stifle selective ones. However, I can see that
few wish to be tainted with the association of venerating an author who
may have repressed paedophiliac desires. When you factor in the
business interests, little wonder that some genre folk will just lazily
trot out one isolated quote and shout 'Yippee, that's all the proof I
need!' instead of constructing a more detailed and thoughtful argument.
I am perfectly happy to acknowledge that there are several different
points of view on this issue, but thusfar, the argument favoured by the
'Jamesian Apologists' remains evasive, unconvincing and defensive. Just
because James left behind an implied demand not to explore these issues
(his habitual 'warnings to the curious'), it doesn't mean that we
should. Besides, it's perfectly natural that James should seek to
control analysis of his work after his death, especially if he did have
something to hide. No letters or diaries detailing his private
relationships have ever come to light, implying they were carefully
disposed of. The titling of his last original collection - 'A Warning
To The Curious' - can be deemed as especially potent a censure if
viewed from this perspective.
No one in the Doyle family wanted 'The Ghost Of Goresthorpe Grange' to
be reprinted, but it was, after his death; clearly no one in the
extended James family (I refer to the James Apologists) wants to
explore these psychological issues. In this regard, we can't just
disregard some wishes whilst honouring others, especially when obvious
motives can be attributed. There needs to be some parity of principle.
CB
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net
>
> You mean that your opinions about M R James are entirely summed up in
> one quote by one person?
>
That is exactly the purpose of quotation, to provide a concise
statement of one's own beliefs and opinions. The quotation is used
because that third party expresses one's own beliefs and opinions
better than one feels one can do.
>
> Cox's book on James is admirable for many reasons, but it's Achilles
> heel has always been its lack of robust literary analysis. Like Nigel
> Kneale, Cox begs us not to subject James' work to the same scrutiny
> that is applied elsewhere to every other writer precisely *because* he
> can see where it will lead.
>
Please provide a quote of Cox "begging" his readers not to scrutinize
the works of James.
>
> After all, you don't need to be a doctor of
> literature to deduce what all that Jamesian imagery might signify.
>
But you do need to be a doctor of literature to determine the accuracy
of any particular interpretation of Jamsian imagery, and to determine
how much significance to give it versus other interpretations. In
other words, any fool can propose what he feels is a likely hypothesis,
but only a knowledgeable man can determine how legitimate that
hypothesis is and how best to test it.
>
> Cox's view is that of a romantic who doesn't want to be told that
> Father Christmas isn't real. He urges us *not* to explore these issues
> because he fears it will ruin the romance.
>
Please quote where Cox urges his readers "*not* to explore these
issues". Please provide evidence that demonstrates that Cox holds this
romantic view and that he fears its ruination.
>
> My own belief is that we would learn more about James and appreciate
> his fiction from a different perspective if we explore these issues.
>
I gave you the opportunity to do just that and you ignored it. Yet you
continue to push this subject elsewhere, as part of a general criticism
of so-called "Jamsian apologists". That would seem to imply that you
have no interest in a rational discussion, but merely to use it as a
weapon to attack people you disagree with.
>
> I am perfectly happy to acknowledge that there are several different
> points of view on this issue, but thusfar, the argument favoured by the
> 'Jamesian Apologists' remains evasive, unconvincing and defensive.
>
As is your own, since so far you have presented no evidence. But it's
not too late. You can still post to my debate thread a statement of
your argument and the evidence that supports it.
>
> Just
> because James left behind an implied demand not to explore these issues
> (his habitual 'warnings to the curious'). . . .
>
Please quote James "demanding" that people not perform a psychological
analysis of his work.
>
> No letters or diaries detailing his private
> relationships have ever come to light, implying they were carefully
> disposed of.
>
I would tend to agree, up to a point: An equally valid implication is
that the kind of "private relationships" you speculate he had never
happened.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Christopher Roden
<haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>My own belief is that we would learn more about James and appreciate
>his fiction from a different perspective if we explore these issues. I
>also think it encumbent upon Jamesian 'societies' to promote all forms
>of analysis rather than stifle selective ones. However, I can see that
>few wish to be tainted with the association of venerating an author who
>may have repressed paedophiliac desires. When you factor in the
>business interests, little wonder that some genre folk will just lazily
>trot out one isolated quote and shout 'Yippee, that's all the proof I
>need!' instead of constructing a more detailed and thoughtful argument.
>
Hey, Ok, let's have a 'discussion' about this.
M. R. James was a lifelong academic, who spent more of his life within
the confines of King's College, Cambridge, than he did anywhere else.
In 1918, at the age of 50, he became Provost of Eton College, the
College in which he had been educated as a young boy.
According to one of this group's commentators, he then set about
buggering the young boys of the College and spent his time as Provost
indulging his paedophilic desires, a statement all the more impressive
for being bolstered by the additional argument that no diaries of
MRJ's have ever been found, thus providing further proof that they
were destroyed to stop people finding out about his vile habits.
The argument is, unfortunately, complicated by the fact that not one
of the abused boys from Eton has ever come forward with a complaint
about MRJ. But this slight drawback is, of course, of little moment.
If Mr Barker will come forward with evidence for his accusation that
MRJ was an active paedophile/pederast, then we will certainly have a
meaty subject on which to chew. On the other hand, if the best he can
do is continue to spout his speculative bile and nonsense, we are no
further forward.
Given evidence to discuss, I, for one, despite the vast fortune I make
by selling works written by MRJ, would be more than happy to see the
subject thrashed out. Sadly, I fear that the evidence will elude the
accusers.
Christopher
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
wisely observes:
"There are certain aspects of James's work - those which make it
powerful - which speak of a strongly repressed vein of sexuality. One
does not have to be a fully paid up Freudian to wonder about mouths
under pillows, demonically active bedclothes, eviscerated children
etc.. etc.. Repressed sexuality often manifests itself in cruelty or
sadism and this plays a significant role in James's finest and, at
the same time, most worrying stories. Why deny it? Why not explore it?"
[Source: Interview on Haunted River website.]
CB
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
unprincipled liar and certainly did not bother to read any of your
post. Besides, what you know about M R James could be written on the
back of a postage stamp in a giant pen-marker.
CB
Christopher Roden
<haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Oh dear, a very clumsy and predictable response. But as Reggie Oliver
>wisely observes:
>
>"There are certain aspects of James's work - those which make it
>powerful - which speak of a strongly repressed vein of sexuality. One
>does not have to be a fully paid up Freudian to wonder about mouths
>under pillows, demonically active bedclothes, eviscerated children
>etc.. etc.. Repressed sexuality often manifests itself in cruelty or
>sadism and this plays a significant role in James's finest and, at
>the same time, most worrying stories. Why deny it? Why not explore it?"
>
You said earlier that you preferred to think for yourself.
So, why are you quoting Reggie Oliver's observations instead of
something original which provides the evidence to back up your
argument; and what does repressed sexuality have to do with your
accusations of pederasty and paedophilia?
CR
Barbara Roden
"Carnacki The Ghost-Finder" <haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125433467....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Oh dear, a very clumsy and predictable response. But as Reggie Oliver
> wisely observes:
>
> "There are certain aspects of James's work - those which make it
> powerful - which speak of a strongly repressed vein of sexuality. One
> does not have to be a fully paid up Freudian to wonder about mouths
> under pillows, demonically active bedclothes, eviscerated children
> etc.. etc.. Repressed sexuality often manifests itself in cruelty or
> sadism and this plays a significant role in James's finest and, at
> the same time, most worrying stories. Why deny it? Why not explore it?"
A certain poster, further up this thread: "Some of us prefer to think for
ourselves, however." Hmmm.
We can, and do, speculate about authors, basing these speculations in part
upon their work. To SUPPOSE that someone might have thought or felt or been
inclined towards such-and-such, based on what he or she writes, can take us
some interesting places; but when such speculation is taken as proof, then
we're in dangerous territory indeed.
There is no hard evidence, of a type that would stand up in a court of law
(or even get the case that far), that James ever took an unhealthy interest
in any of the boys with whom he came into contact, or even thought about
taking an unhealthy interest in them. He may well have had affairs with
other MEN, but even then we have no proof.
He was a lifelong academic; many people of both sexes are. He never married;
many people of both sexes choose not to marry. He took an interest in, and
was friendly with, the boys with whom he came into contact; he wouldn't have
been much of a teacher otherwise. We have a fifty-something unmarried female
teacher at our son's school, who takes an interest in her students,
encourages them above and beyond the call of duty, and spends a lot of time
at the school on extra-curricular matters. Should I be suspicious of her, or
suspect an ulterior motive? Of course not.
James was at King's until 1918, so until then was hardly dealing with young
boys; after that he was at Eton until his death in 1936. That would mean
that there are doubtless still men alive who were boys there when James was
Provost; even the youngest boys who were there in 1918 would probably have
been alive into the 1980s at least. Not one person has ever come forward in
all that time with any accusations of any untoward behaviour on James's
part.
Discussing someone's sexuality, repressed or otherwise, and using their
writing to support one's stance is one thing; leaping from there to
accusations of paedophilia or pederasty (which aren't synonymous, by the
way) is another, particularly in the absence of anything like concrete
evidence (diaries, letters, testimony by other people).
Barbara
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
your husband have quickly resorted to extremism and personal abuse. In
your case, we also have the patronising English lesson, which is surely
misplaced, given the stylistic weaknesses of your own written work.
However, the brevity of your argument is most illuminating.
To the put your response into some context, it's useful to remember
that you have compelling reasons for being a Jamesian 'Apologist'. You
have obvious vested business interests, not to mention having staked
your own professional credibility on James's often disturbing stories
being nothing more than immaculate conceptions.
Pray allow those *without* your vested interests the liberty of
exploring James's work without your unpleasant and unwelcome
pseudo-patriarchal presence.
Barbara Roden
> Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the matter.
Always happy to oblige! Last time I checked this was still a basic right to
which I was entitled, free speech being one of the cornerstones of western
civilisation.
>As usual, you and
> your husband have quickly resorted to extremism and personal abuse.
Well, I'd hate to disappoint. And of course it's not the sort of behaviour
in which you would ever indulge yourself, so you must find it deeply
abhorrent.
> In
> your case, we also have the patronising English lesson, which is surely
> misplaced, given the stylistic weaknesses of your own written work.
Have to agree to disagree, there, I suppose.
> However, the brevity of your argument is most illuminating.
It is the soul of wit, after all.
> To the put your response into some context, it's useful to remember
> that you have compelling reasons for being a Jamesian 'Apologist'. You
> have obvious vested business interests, not to mention having staked
> your own professional credibility on James's often disturbing stories
> being nothing more than immaculate conceptions.
Yes, it's amazing the fortune that's to be made from M. R. James. You'd be
surprised, you really would.
I don't recall staking my professional credibility on James or anyone else,
but doubtless you know me better than I do myself, and are thus able to make
these pronouncements. I shall have to remember to ask you how I should vote
in the next federal election, where I stand on the softwood lumber dispute,
and how I feel about the issue of same-sex marriages.
> Pray allow those *without* your vested interests the liberty of
> exploring James's work without your unpleasant and unwelcome
> pseudo-patriarchal presence.
I don't think I've ever been called patriarchal, pseudo- or otherwise,
before. How charming! However, as the word derives from Greek words meaning
'father' and 'ruler', I don't think it's quite the word you had in mind. But
there I go being patronising again. I do apologise.
Anyone and everyone has complete liberty to explore James's work; but hard
as this may be for you to believe, some people MIGHT HOLD DIFFERENT OPINIONS
TO THE ONES YOU HOLD. Amazing, I know, but there it is! If it makes you
happy to speculate that James was a paedophile or pederast, then full speed
ahead. Just don't expect too many other people to leap, lemming-like, onto
the same bandwagon, at least without some kind of proof.
Enough of this airy persiflage, however. Ta ra for now!
Barbara
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
the characters from ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST. He's liable to
blow up at any moment, spitting out revealing and disturbing
profanities; he employs ridiculous, childlike arguments; and he betrays
a religiously esctastic idolatory for certain people.
Christopher Roden wrote:
> On 30 Aug 2005 13:24:27 -0700, "Carnacki The Ghost-Finder"
> <haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Oh dear, a very clumsy and predictable response. But as Reggie Oliver
> >wisely observes:
> >
> >"There are certain aspects of James's work - those which make it
> >powerful - which speak of a strongly repressed vein of sexuality. One
> >does not have to be a fully paid up Freudian to wonder about mouths
> >under pillows, demonically active bedclothes, eviscerated children
> >etc.. etc.. Repressed sexuality often manifests itself in cruelty or
> >sadism and this plays a significant role in James's finest and, at
> >the same time, most worrying stories. Why deny it? Why not explore it?"
> >
>
> You said earlier that you preferred to think for yourself.
>
Why, yes I did.
> So, why are you quoting Reggie Oliver's observations instead of
> something original which provides the evidence to back up your
> argument;
Because in making my various arguments, I employ *many* examples and
quotations to support my own independently-arrived-at beliefs. It's
what you're meant to do. As opposed to your own method, which is to
just quote one example, and then to jump for joy that you've found the
Holy Grail.
and what does repressed sexuality have to do with your
> accusations of pederasty and paedophilia?
>
> CR
Here you go again: clumsy, emotive language. If you are going to be
abusive and intolerant, pray have the wit to do so elegantly.
The powerful imagery in James's tales hints strongly at sexual
repression; the release (or climax) comes from the sadistic,
homo-erotic violence inflicted upon the victim (often a child). This
much should be accepted as reasonable and probable. The theories should
diverge *after* this point, with one camp arguing that James was a
celibate who merely fantasised about molesting male adolescents, whilst
the other speculates that he did engage in inappropriate sexual
activity.
I have explained in great detail elsewhere why there isn't any
first-hand evidence of James's sexual escapades, whilst drawing
attention to the many references to his obvious romantic interest in
boys and boyish-looking men. You are quite welcome to publish similar
essays or articles, and I for one would look forward to reading them.
CB
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
(Your first patronsing comment was as far as I got.)
Barbara Roden
> Whatever.
>
> (Your first patronsing comment was as far as I got.)
Basically, to sum up, it's a free world, and everyone is entitled to their
opinion on things, including whether or not James was or wasn't a paedophile
or pederast; if you want to pursue the matter, then go for it, but just
because someone else doesn't want to, or disagrees with you, doesn't make
them or you right or wrong, there being no proof or evidence either way. So
to attack those who disagree with you is misguided at best and pig-headedly
ignorant at worst. I'll let you decide whereabouts on the spectrum you fall.
Barbara
Christopher Roden
On 30 Aug 2005 14:57:44 -0700, "Carnacki The Ghost-Finder"
<haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Debating any issue with Chris Roden is like being with an amalgam of
>the characters from ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST. He's liable to
>blow up at any moment, spitting out revealing and disturbing
>profanities; he employs ridiculous, childlike arguments; and he betrays
>a religiously esctastic idolatory for certain people.
>
Not at all, old chap. I invited you to produce some evidence to
support your crazy thesis, which would have provided an opportunity to
discuss your findings and views in further detail. You're the one
who's picked up the ball and run away, as usual.
Offer's still on the table. Let see you present your opening remarks
to the jury.
CR
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net
>
> I really don't know why you bother.
>
I asked myself the same question when I wrote my response, but I am
interested in this subject and I want to learn more about it. Besides,
there was always the possibility you would provide the evidence I asked
for. Obviously you won't, though I believe the real reason is you can
not.
>
> I despise you for being an unprincipled liar . . .
>
Which is irrelevant regarding whether you can produce any evidence to
support your argument. I will admit, though, that it makes a good
excuse to avoid having to admit you have no evidence.
>
> . . . and certainly did not bother to read any of your post.
>
Then how did you know it was about MR James?
>
> Besides, what you know about M R James could be written on the
> back of a postage stamp in a giant pen-marker.
>
Which again is irrelevant regarding whether you can produce any
evidence to support your argument. I will admit, though, that it makes
a another good excuse to avoid having to admit you have no evidence.
Kevin L. O'Brien
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net
>
> Oh dear, a very clumsy and predictable response. But as Reggie Oliver
> wisely observes:
>
> "There are certain aspects of James's work - those which make it
> powerful - which speak of a strongly repressed vein of sexuality. One
> does not have to be a fully paid up Freudian to wonder about mouths
> under pillows, demonically active bedclothes, eviscerated children
> etc.. etc.. Repressed sexuality often manifests itself in cruelty or
> sadism and this plays a significant role in James's finest and, at
> the same time, most worrying stories. Why deny it? Why not explore it?"
>
As valuable as it otherwise is, Mr. Oliver's opinion is not evidence.
Can you or he give examples and provide evidence that demonstrates that
these examples represent repressed sexuality? Can you or he provide
evidence that this repressed sexuality was directed towards young boys?
Can you or he demonstrate that other psychological theories are not a
better interpretor of these images than Freudianism? Can you or he
demonstrate that this repressed sexual attraction towards boys
manifested itself in his life outside his writing?
Kevin L. O'Brien
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net
>
> Pray allow those *without* your vested interests the liberty of
> exploring James's work without your unpleasant and unwelcome
> pseudo-patriarchal presence.
>
I have no vested interests in James whatsoever. So please post your
evidence that supports your argument.
Kevin L. O'Brien
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net
>
> The powerful imagery in James's tales hints strongly at sexual
> repression; the release (or climax) comes from the sadistic,
> homo-erotic violence inflicted upon the victim (often a child).
>
Please provide a few examples and the evidence that demonstrates the
truth of this claim.
>
> This much should be accepted as reasonable and probable.
>
Yes, but not certain. An equally valid explanation is that he was
personally frightened of such violence, and like any good horror writer
wrote about what scared him the most. What evidence do you have that
the imagery in his stories indicates sexual repression instead of
personal fear?
>
> The theories should
> diverge *after* this point, with one camp arguing that James was a
> celibate who merely fantasised about molesting male adolescents, whilst
> the other speculates that he did engage in inappropriate sexual
> activity.
>
Only if you can demonstrate your initial premise, that the imagery in
his stories is the result of sexual repression and not personal fear,
and then you have to demonstrate that the sexuality being repressed is
directed towards young boys.
>
> I have explained in great detail elsewhere why there isn't any
> first-hand evidence of James's sexual escapades . . .
>
Could you summarize this explanation please, and give a few examples?
>
> . . . whilst drawing
> attention to the many references to his obvious romantic interest in
> boys and boyish-looking men.
>
Could you give some examples and the evidence that supports your
conclusion please?
Kevin L. O'Brien
John Pelan
<haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Whatever.
>
>(Your first patronsing comment was as far as I got.)
I'll bet you've used this line a lot in life.... This goes a long way
to explaining your appalling ignorance....
Did they ever let you out of the corner in your school days?
Cheerio!
John
Christopher Roden
<haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>and what does repressed sexuality have to do with your
>> accusations of pederasty and paedophilia?
>>
>> CR
>
>Here you go again: clumsy, emotive language. If you are going to be
>abusive and intolerant, pray have the wit to do so elegantly.
Pray, do, please enlighten me as to exactly what in the preceding
statement was 'abusive and intolerant'. Pray, have the wit to do so
elegantly.
>
>The powerful imagery in James's tales hints strongly at sexual
>repression; the release (or climax) comes from the sadistic,
>homo-erotic violence inflicted upon the victim (often a child). This
>much should be accepted as reasonable and probable. The theories should
>diverge *after* this point, with one camp arguing that James was a
>celibate who merely fantasised about molesting male adolescents, whilst
>the other speculates that he did engage in inappropriate sexual
>activity.
There is a certain amount of powerful imagery in A. N. L. Munby's
'Herodes Redivivus'. Would you, therefore, suggest that Munby was a
paedophile, a pederast, a sadist? Let's take this a step further: Is
his 'The White Sack' a sexual fantasy?
But let's take this 'homo-erotic violence' a step further. One
presumes that you are referring to 'Lost Hearts'. Could it not be that
MRJ was relating a story about a man (Mr Abney) who had discovered a
way to extend his life, and who would use any means to bring about his
desire . . . ?
>I have explained in great detail elsewhere why there isn't any
>first-hand evidence of James's sexual escapades, whilst drawing
>attention to the many references to his obvious romantic interest in
>boys and boyish-looking men. You are quite welcome to publish similar
>essays or articles, and I for one would look forward to reading them.
>
You haven't explained anything of the sort. You've speculated that the
absence of diaries is proof of James's having destroyed them to hid
his (as you see it) dirty secrets. But tell me: do you keep a detailed
daily diary of your doings? Is every sexual encounter recorded in neat
Barker handwriting for posterity's sake? Perhaps you do, but, if so,
you're more sick than I thought.
Just as a matter of interest, perhaps you should do another one of
your polls: ask everyone on abg-f how much of a daily diary they keep.
Could be revealing. It might even provide some support for your
speculation. I'll tell you now, I don't, and never have done.
CR
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
not propose to waste time by going over old ground.
That isn't an evasion. You don't stand a chance of winning any debate
on this issue with me, and I can't see the point of sticking around
until you throw a hissing fit. You are the most manipulative and
intransignet man I know, an opinion more widely shared than you will
ever allow for, and as a consequence, trying to reason with you is like
trying to tame a talking wolverine.
To close on a Jamesian note:
"Imagine one of the awful bird-catching spiders of South America
translated into human form, and endowed with intelligence just less
than human...."
That's you, that is: raging animal hate trapped inside a brain that has
'intelligence just less than human'.
CB
Link to an essay on M R James:
http://hauntedriver.co.uk/demons_essay.html
Christopher Roden
<haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I've made my case in a succession of essays and internet postings. I do
>not propose to waste time by going over old ground.
>
>That isn't an evasion. You don't stand a chance of winning any debate
>on this issue with me, and I can't see the point of sticking around
>until you throw a hissing fit. You are the most manipulative and
>intransignet man I know, an opinion more widely shared than you will
>ever allow for, and as a consequence, trying to reason with you is like
>trying to tame a talking wolverine.
>
>To close on a Jamesian note:
>
>"Imagine one of the awful bird-catching spiders of South America
>translated into human form, and endowed with intelligence just less
>than human...."
>
>That's you, that is: raging animal hate trapped inside a brain that has
>'intelligence just less than human'.
>
Ah, such a way with words, Mr Barker. Perhaps you should try putting
them in the correct order occasionally. You might make more sense.
CR
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
not to taken literally).
How can one possibly argue with a man like yourself? You make up
peurile book descriptions like the one below; accuse others of sexual
frustration after leaping to embarrassing and erroneous conclusions
about certain words (the infamous 'sheaf / sheath' comment); and just a
few short posts ago, uttered these curious words in the context of
discussing M R James's sexual attraction to adolescents:
"..we will certainly have a meaty subject on which to chew. On the
other hand, if the best he can do is continue to spout his speculative
bile and nonsense..."
Meat-chewing and the spouting of liquids: let us all hope and pray that
you yourself never attempt to write original fiction.
CB
PEURILE 'JOKE' (authored by Christopher 'I'm Not Bitter That Reggie
Oliver Published With Chris Barker' Roden):
"An inside source reveals that the next publication from The Haunted
Trivet will be The Incredible Wet Dreams of Cardinal Barkerini by
Cheese Barfer, which will have a detailed introduction from the
author's good friend Seaman Staines.
The edition will be limited to 100 copies, 99 of which will be given
away to friends. The remaining copy will be a review copy, sent to
Grossly Ghostly, the journal which The Haunted Trivet has established
to rival his main competitor, Weirdly Supernatural. Books will be
bound in a special cloth derived from Cheese Barfer's bed-sheets.
Story titles include: 'Seaman Staines comes to call'; 'Oh, wank, and
I'll come for you, my lad!'; 'The Stains of Barferchester Cathedral';
'Wanking for the Curious'; 'Bedded in Besthorpe'; 'How I Came and Knew
that M. R. James was a Pederast'; 'Comings and Goings at The Haunted
Trivet'; 'The Ups and Downs of a Wastrel Publisher'; 'If only I were a
Pussy'; 'Master Bates's Inheritance'; and a special 50,000 word essay,
which studies the perversions and eccentricities of the Barfer canon.
Production values will be as have come to be expected from the Haunted
Trivet: Botch binding, and typographically inaccurate. Not to be
missed. Ask for your free copy now.
The Haunted Trivet is also inviting contributions for its forthcoming
anthology Hands On."
(Copyright Christopher Roden)
PPS. And yet Roden still wonders why I personally refuse to send him a
review copy of the new Reggie Oliver publication?
Christopher Roden
Good God! Talk about re-cycling material. And this from a man who says
he likes original thought.
CR
Christopher Roden
<haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>PPS. And yet Roden still wonders why I personally refuse to send him a
>review copy of the new Reggie Oliver publication?
As usual, Mr Barker has his facts awry. I don't wonder anything of the
kind. There would be no point in your sending me anything, as I don't
review.
Now be a good boy, and go play in the traffic.
CR
andyandy68
Skeletons In The Jamesian Closet on the internet so people can read it
and decide whether or not they agree?
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net
>
> I've made my case in a succession of essays and internet postings. I do
> not propose to waste time by going over old ground.
>
There are those in this group who, like me, have not seen these essays
or internet postings, so it would not be a waste of your time to
reiterate your arguments and evidence for us. At least you can post
links to these essays and postings so we can read them.
>
> That isn't an evasion. You don't stand a chance of winning any debate
> on this issue with me, and I can't see the point of sticking around
> until you throw a hissing fit.
>
Then ignore him and post your arguments and evidence for the others who
haven't read them before and want to read about them.
Kevin L. O'Brien
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net
I think that's an excellent suggestion and I second the motion.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Christopher Roden
>>
>
>Then ignore him and post your arguments and evidence for the others who
>haven't read them before and want to read about them.
>
>Kevin L. O'Brien
Oh, Kevin, come on, give us a break. Mr Barker would only be prepared
to regurgitate his speculative nonsense. He has no evidence, nor will
he find any evidence, to support his accusation that M. R. James was a
paedophile or a pederast.
John Pelan
Bloody good idea, it's not as though anyone is going to spend money on
it.
Cheers,
John
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
Erm, for the same reasons that other publishers don't. I'm afraid the
booklet is out of print, but you might be able to pick up a copy on ABE
or Ebay.
However, you are more than welcome to read this freely available essay,
which discusses similar issues:
http://hauntedriver.co.uk/demons_essay.html
TTFN,
CB