Robert Aickman: Sexual Ambiguity Or Sexual Perversion?
Chris Barker
Iblis is lured upstairs (or up-satyrs) by Mr Stillman to view the off-stage
climatical horror at Mr Coner's house, an experience that she finds so
utterly traumatic that she faints clean away. Aickman tells us:
"When Mrs Iblis came round, the radiance in the air was much diminished.
Mavis and Mr Stillman had lifted her into Mavis's deck-chair. It was cold.
Mrs Iblis peered through the railings. There was no one in sight. Only the
light in Mrs Coner's bedroom burned reddish through the glimmer.
'Where are they?'
'They have merged,' said Mr Stillman. 'They are at one.' He was rubbing her
left wrist. Mavis, now apparently much recovered, was rubbing her right.
'Where have they gone to?'
Mavis made a slight gesture away from the house. 'We shan't see THEM any
more.'
Mrs Iblis hardly dared to follow with her eyes. Then she saw that the
radiance had entirely faded. It was a starry, moonless night, without a
cloud in the sky.
'I no longer feel frightened.'
'Nor I', said Mavis. 'Only cold. Why don't we?'
'Why should you?' said Mr Stillman. 'They've got what they wanted. As
everyone does.' He re-tied the cord of his dressing gown. 'Shall we go
down?'
In the surreal climax to RINGING THE CHANGES (from "Dark Entries", 1964),
the newly wed Phrynne awakens after the sexual horrors of the night before
and smiles in an erotic, faintly degenerate fashion. She has clearly
experienced a sexual awakening of an unspeakable dark and pleasurable
nature. But what does it all mean?
Personally, I am tempted to let metaphors lie. After all, as Walter de la
Mare once argued "What the writer is least conscious of in his work may be
its most valuable quality. He may, if Heaven be with him, have brought down
a far rarer bird than the one he aimed at." (Source: 'The Ghost Book',
Introduction, Faber & Faber 1932.) However, one may at least speculate about
motive, provided that no pretension towards authority is staked.
Someone who knew Aickman - I genuinely forget who told me this, but I do
remember they knew him personally - once told me that Aickman scripted his
tales whilst in the throes of trancelike automatic writing. (I presume
logically that this applies to first drafts rather than subsequent
revisions.) If that is the case, then one could argue that the natural
conclusion to be drawn from the sexual imagery exampled above must surely
have sprang from a subconcious source. The imagery would therefore be
ambigious, created whilst in a dreamlike, admittedly Fruedian, state.
However, if the sexual ambiguities were basted on afterwards, or at the very
least embellished whilst in a conscious and lucid state, they must surely
represent a deliberate intention to sexualise the tale. If so, to what end?
Mrs Iblis faints. She wakes to discover that she has been restrained in some
way as evidenced by the chafing to her wrists. Mr Stillman and Mavis rub her
wrists sympathetically: they know what has caused the chafing. There is but
one clue: Mr Stillman ties up his open dressing gown. The implication is
that Mr Stillman has sexually molested her. Yet Mrs Iblis - elsewhere
portrayed as a shrewd character - seems either to not notice this, or else
to be complicit in the act. After all, Mrs Iblis, a married woman, had
arrived at the party alone, perhaps in the quest for some form of adventure;
and as Mr Stillman points out: 'They've got what they wanted. As everyone
does.'
Had the three of them - Mavis, Mrs Iblis and Mr Stillman - got what they
wanted?
A similar scenario presents itself with the fortunes of Phrynne in RINGING
THE CHANGES. She finds herself swept away in the throes of a nightmarish
celebration from the Other Side (surely aka Dunwich in Suffolk) whilst on
honeymoon with an elderly new husband, and the presumption is that she
experiences a sexual epiphany of a most devilish kind. Where before she had
been reticent, supplicatory, even virginal towards her ageing spouse, she
now emerges as a either a sexual wanton or as a promisciously enlightened
young woman (depending upon your interpretation of her awakening).
My question is therefore, what was Aickman trying to do here? Was he writing
whilst 'under the influence' (of automatic / dreamlike writing), or did he
carefully layer on these erotic libinous images in order to sublimate his
own sexual frustrations? And what do those sexual images represent? Do they
hint at an otherwise healthy sexual frustration, bubbling up through one's
irrepressible subconscious, or do they point towards darker sexual
fantasies?
PS. And am I alone in wondering whether BIND HER HAIR may have inspired
Daphne du Maurier's DON'T LOOK NOW some ten years later? I refer in
particular to the dwarves.
CB
"There's more to life than books you now - but not much more"
THE SMITHS ("Handsome Devil")
Doug Campbell
things that makes Aickman so fascinating.
Doug
'Suit you, Sir . .'
Jim Rockhill
blackfrancis
"Doug Campbell" <byakh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:91f2fa38.02120...@posting.google.com...
Very well. The question of the subject is a trick one. Aickman's tales are
ALWAYS ambiguous and when sex is involved they are that and almost always
perverted. The only normal man/wife semi-happy relationships occurs in "A
Roman Question" a surprising tale where several people are witness to the
Aickman "ghost". Here are some that fit the mold of both dirty and puzzling:
"Ravissante" - I would love to know what he does to all those underclothes.
Aickman says, "Love them, tear them, possess them..." and then, "Certainly,
time passed."
"The Swords"- A bunch of men sticking big knives into a woman's body. 'Nuff
said.
"Your Tiny Hand is Frozen" - Phone sex with the dead "...it was
surprisingly easy to be intimate into the telephone, very intimate
indeed..."
It is the *into* that always gets me.
"The Stains" - On the surface this appears to be yet another man meets
young, virginal nymph tale. In reality if you read the first description of
intercourse between Stephen and Nell it sounds an awful lot like rape.
"Marriage" - If I am reading the end right this is the most perverted of all
Aickman tales. Nevermind the voyeurism between the sex with the roommates,
Helen and Ellen. Oedipus?!?! Yick!
"The Hopsice" - Well, we discussed this before.
Just a few examples of Aickman's exploration of the ambiguously perverted
by most standards. I find it interesting that many of his overtly sexual and
graphic tales come from the latter part of his life.
blackfrancis
Burl Veneer
> In LARGER THAN ONESELF ....
> Mrs Iblis faints. She wakes to discover that she has been restrained in some
> way as evidenced by the chafing to her wrists. Mr Stillman and Mavis rub her
> wrists sympathetically: they know what has caused the chafing. There is but
> one clue: Mr Stillman ties up his open dressing gown. The implication is
> that Mr Stillman has sexually molested her. Yet Mrs Iblis - elsewhere
> portrayed as a shrewd character - seems either to not notice this, or else
> to be complicit in the act. After all, Mrs Iblis, a married woman, had
> arrived at the party alone, perhaps in the quest for some form of adventure;
> and as Mr Stillman points out: 'They've got what they wanted. As everyone
> does.'
I am slow on the uptake--I reread this one not long ago and did not
catch this, but there it is as plain as day. Rob Suggs pointed out
some pretty blatant sexual images which had previously escaped me in
"The Same Dog" a few years ago. I seem to recall that an issue of
gender identity was central to "Niemandswasser", and there were
implications of a monstrous birth of suspect paternity in "The School
Friend"... I'm afraid I have no conclusions to offer right now but my
interest is piqued and it's time to do some rereading!
Bill B.
RPN
> Mrs Iblis faints. She wakes to discover that she has been restrained in some
> way as evidenced by the chafing to her wrists. Mr Stillman and Mavis rub her
> wrists sympathetically: they know what has caused the chafing. There is but
> one clue: Mr Stillman ties up his open dressing gown. The implication is
> that Mr Stillman has sexually molested her.
Come now, Mr. Barker. Rubbing a person's hands and wrists is (or was)
a standard method of rousing him or her from a faint, to be seen in
countless Victorian novels and dramas—not to mention old movies.
(Where you're getting the notion that Mrs. I's wrists had been
*previously* chafed is a mystery.) And one might well need to retie
the belt of one's dressing gown, for the sake of modesty, after
bending over and lifting an unconscious woman into a chair.
In this case, I'm afraid, the images of bondage and rape are wholly
the work of your own imagination.
RPN
Chris Barker
"RPN" <r...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:56abacbc.02120...@posting.google.com...
> "Chris Barker" <haunte...@waitrose.com> wrote in message
news:<X42dnc94lr4...@brightview.com>...
>
> > Mrs Iblis faints. She wakes to discover that she has been restrained in
some
> > way as evidenced by the chafing to her wrists. Mr Stillman and Mavis rub
her
> > wrists sympathetically: they know what has caused the chafing. There is
but
> > one clue: Mr Stillman ties up his open dressing gown. The implication is
> > that Mr Stillman has sexually molested her.
>
>
> Come now, Mr. Barker. Rubbing a person's hands and wrists is (or was)
> a standard method of rousing him or her from a faint, to be seen in
> (Where you're getting the notion that Mrs. I's wrists had been
> *previously* chafed is a mystery.) And one might well need to retie
> the belt of one's dressing gown, for the sake of modesty, after
> bending over and lifting an unconscious woman into a chair.
>
> In this case, I'm afraid, the images of bondage and rape are wholly
> the work of your own imagination.
>
> RPN
Very formal: first "Mr Barker" and then alleged Victorian doctoring
practises. May we please enquire who you actually are, "Mr RPN"?
I disagree with your comments. Aickman was a modern writer with a proven MO
for erotic morbidity: to apply a chaste perception to the situation as it
occured is implausible. This is Robert Aickman, not P. G Wodehouse. Where
else does Aickman feel the need to ascribe Victorian mannerisms to his 1960s
characters? His characters are always highly contemporary. And sex is
usually somewhere on the agenda.
I have never heard of rubbing someone's wrists after a faint. Putting their
head between their knees, offering a hot sweet drink, perhaps a nip of
brandy, yes, but I cannot recall ever seeing anyone rub a wrist in film or
print. I stand to be corrected however: do please quote the sources referred
to and I will revisit the tale with them in mind.
As things stand, I believe we are meant to intuit that Mrs Iblis has been
molested and that the dressing-gown cord may have been used to restrain her.
Does the tale not reek of sexual imagery, after all? Is there not also a
generalised link between religious and sexual intensity? Please remember
that this scene occurs immediately after the religious (or devilish)
ecstasy.
I believe that this is the most reasonable interpretation. I think others in
this thread have agreed to varying degrees. And I never claimed it was rape.
That image is alas wholly your own.
Todd T.
fiction, and Aickman fiction at that, the reader does not just happen to
notice things like gown strings being tied. If details like this are
mentioned, there is some reason why, and in this case it seems plausible to
me that the reason is to make an implication about actions we did not
witness first-hand. The purpose of suggesting modesty doesn't sound as
plausible, given the rest of the story, the many better ways to suggest
modesty if that were needed, and the fact that I can't see what function it
would serve here. But then, Aickman wants us to speculate, otherwise the
dubious offstage actions would have been front-and-center (pardon the
image).
I don't know anything about wrist-rubbing as a revival technique, but even
if it is commonplace, that does not mean that a writer of Aickman's
predilections would not let the scene present both innocent and vile
potential implications at the same time, without resolving it.
- Todd T.
"RPN" <r...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:56abacbc.02120...@posting.google.com...
> "Chris Barker" <haunte...@waitrose.com> wrote in message
news:<X42dnc94lr4...@brightview.com>...
>
> > Mrs Iblis faints. She wakes to discover that she has been restrained in
some
> > way as evidenced by the chafing to her wrists. Mr Stillman and Mavis rub
her
> > wrists sympathetically: they know what has caused the chafing. There is
but
> > one clue: Mr Stillman ties up his open dressing gown. The implication is
> > that Mr Stillman has sexually molested her.
>
>
> Come now, Mr. Barker. Rubbing a person's hands and wrists is (or was)
> a standard method of rousing him or her from a faint, to be seen in
> countless Victorian novels and dramas-not to mention old movies.
Jim Rockhill
>
> I don't know anything about wrist-rubbing as a revival technique, but even
> if it is commonplace, that does not mean that a writer of Aickman's
> predilections would not let the scene present both innocent and vile
> potential implications at the same time, without resolving it.
>
> - Todd T.
I like this: "innocent and vile potential implications".
Jim
Todd T.
"Jim Rockhill" <jr...@locallink.net> wrote in message
news:cRidnauJ-eP...@locallink.net...
It's what the pastor said at my christening.
- Todd T.
Chris Barker
I agree wholeheartedly. I think it would be impertinent to not credit
Aickman with the erotic guile to have deliberately planned the scene in the
way that he did. To argue otherwise implies that he was a clumsy writer.
Once again, the maestro has cleverly had his cake, eaten it, but left us
wondering whether there was even a cake in the first place.
A similar argument can be made for various Walter de la Mare ambiguities
(all non-sexual though in M. de la Mare's case though). I can well imagine
that many readers might be frustrated with such inconclusiveness, and accept
that it might be a crime in a bad writer, but when a clever writer contrives
to carefully create a murky ambiguity, then I for one applaud and
acknowledge both the intent and the effect.
"Todd T." <tttN...@megapipe.net> wrote in message
news:ljdJ9.6065$K5.3130@fe01...
Jim Rockhill
urinating in the baptismal font.
Jim
"Todd T." <tttN...@megapipe.net> wrote in message
news:XhmJ9.6446$K5.2867@fe01...
Mark Dillon
Jim Rockhill wrote, in reply to Todd T:
>>> I like this: "innocent and vile potential implications".
>>>
>>> Jim
>> It's what the pastor said at my christening.
>>
>> - Todd T.
> Hopefully you did not follow the example of Ethelred the
> Unready by urinating in the baptismal font.
Ethelred the Incontinent?
I seem to recall a recent review in FANFARE of an Ethelred opera.
The mind boggles --
Ethelred, Ethelred, unwise as is his wont
Shamed his noble fathers by pissing in a font!
In a font! In a font! In a deep baptismal font!
Ethelred beware, for this shall your kingship haunt!
-- and recoils.
Mark Dillon
Quebec, Canada
Jim Rockhill
as it does to history?
"Mark Dillon" <dq...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:at6k1u$nud$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
RPN
> I have never heard of rubbing someone's wrists after a faint. Putting their
> head between their knees, offering a hot sweet drink, perhaps a nip of
> brandy, yes, but I cannot recall ever seeing anyone rub a wrist in film or
> print. I stand to be corrected however: do please quote the sources referred
> to and I will revisit the tale with them in mind.
Two quotations from authors that should be familiar to
supernatural-tale devotees:
Norah shook her head sadly. The grasp slowly relaxed. The man had
fainted.
There was brandy in the room. Norah forced some drops into Mr.
Frank's mouth, chafed his hands, and--when mere animal life returned,
before the mind poured in its flood of memories and thoughts--she
lifted him up, and rested his head against her knees. Then she put a
few crumbs of bread taken from the supper-table, soaked in brandy into
his mouth. Suddenly he sprang to his feet.
--Elizabeth Gaskell, "The Manchester Marriage"
"I glanced around, and to my surprise, I noticed something white
moving among the trees. I placed the child down carefully, and
followed, but I could not find any further traces. So I returned to
the child and resumed my examination, and, to my delight, I discovered
that she was still alive. I chafed her hands and gradually she
revived, but to my disappointment she remembered nothing--except that
something had crept up quietly from behind, and had gripped her round
the throat. Then, apparently, she fainted."
--Bram Stoker, *The Lair of the White Worm*, chapter 8
And one from a mid-twentieth-century science fiction story:
Mrs. Bailey had fainted again.
Teal went back after more brandy while Bailey chafed her wrists.
When she had recovered, Teal went cautiously to the window and raised
the screen a crack. Bracing his knees, he studied the scene. He turned
to Bailey. "Come look at this, Homer. See if you recognize it."
--Robert Heinlein, "--And He Built a Crooked House"
Many more examples could be cited, but I haven't the time right now.
RPN
Adam Walter
Thanks for these quotes.
I'm still confused how we got from this information:
* Mrs. Iblis faints.
* "It was cold."
* "Mavis and Mr. Stillman had lifted her into Mavis' deck chair."
* Mr. Stillman's robe had fallen open and he retied it.
to:
* Mrs. Iblis was somehow bound and involved in a kinky scene offstage.
Here we have information that Mavis and Stillman are caring for Iblis
in the face of cold and a faint. They elevate her feet, and it seems
only logical also to rub her hands and perhaps progress to the wrists
to warm her and restore circulation.
As for robes, I've never known a dressing gown to stay tied when I'm
lifting grown women into deck chairs.
I'm the first to admit that Aickman is kinky. However, much has been
made here about whether the oblique sexual references in his writing
are inspired or forced; well, either possibility is more interesting
to me that forcing our own sexual fantasies into a story where they
don't belong.
If we want to say that there is something mildly, vaguely sensual
about the scene, fine. But I can't seen anything more than that.
~Adam
Chris Barker
"Adam Walter" <awal...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3df8c0a4...@news.prodigy.net...
I got there because of the following:
* Aickman's predilection for dark sexual innuendo
* "Larger Than Oneself" is heaving with dark sexual tension
* The "everyone gets what they want" comment e.g. what did Mrs Iblis want
from the party? She seemed to sense sex at every turn.
* The classical comparisons that have always been made between sexual and
religious fervour
* The wrist rubbing coupled with the dressing-gown re-tying is clearly open
to interpretation (I still don't buy the wrist-rubbing explanation)
Like most of RA's work, there can be no definitive ruling. I just wanted to
open it up for debate. Personally I believe that in this scene RA was
intending to hint, if not explicitly state, that something ambigious and odd
might have happened.
I thought the discussion might step beyond the tale into both his other
tales and his personal life. RA commented upon sexual frustration elsewhere
in his tales, and in his autobiography he touched upon his unlucky love
life. Some people did explore sexual imagery in other RA tales but RPN
seemed to want to dismiss my thoughts on this one tale as a figment of my
own imagination, which I think on balance was wrong. Besides, his dismissal
stood at odds with my opening comment reference the WdlMare quote: a writer
may bring down a far rarer bird that the one he thought he had.
I spent an hour reading a very draining essay on Sexual Molestation In House
On The Borderland recently: a very carefully and labourously built case that
beat the reader into submission by its sheer length. The point I want to
make here is that my claim for Larger Than Oneself is a perfectly reasonable
interpretation given Aickman's undisputed proclivity for dark sexual
ambiguity, especially when contrasted with some far weaker claims made
elsewhere.
David Anderson
> about the scene, fine. But I can't seen anything more than that.
> ~Adam
I'm no expert on Aickman but I agree with the above comment. Don't
forget, Aickman was a serious gongoozler so chafing wrists to restore
a young lady after a fainting spell was probably about as erotic as
things usually got for him!
DJA
Mark Dillon
Jim Rockhill wrote:
>> "Mark Dillon" <dq...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>> news:at6k1u$nud$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> I seem to recall a recent review in FANFARE of an Ethelred opera.
>> The mind boggles --
>>
>> Ethelred, Ethelred, unwise as is his wont
>> Shamed his noble fathers by pissing in a font!
>>
>> In a font! In a font! In a deep baptismal font!
>> Ethelred beware, for this shall your kingship haunt!
>>
>> -- and recoils.
> Did you get the sense that this opera might owe as much debt
> to MONTY PYTHON as it does to history?
Let me check the liner notes. Hmmm.
"...And the role of Ethelred's mother is played by Mr. Terry Jones, whose
shrieking voice and sneering, toothless visage enhance a glittering
performance of rare perception."
Could be, Jim. Could very well be! ; )
Mark Dillon
Quebec, Canada
RPN
> * "Larger Than Oneself" is heaving with dark sexual tension
Adumbrations of sexuality abound, I agree--but "dark sexual tension"?
I don't think so, especially since "Larger Than Oneself" seems to be
one of the few Aickman tales that was conceived in a consistent spirit
of comedy (Sister Nuper and her minions, in particular, are a hoot).
Sometime, by the way, this group needs to engage in a detailed
exploration of Aickman's onomastics. Nuper ("recently" in Latin);
Iblis (the Muslim analogue of Satan); Stillman (still a man? a man who
is quiet?); "The Wine-Dark Sea"'s Tal, Lek, and Vin (Swedish words for
speech, play, and wine)--in nearly every story he gives his characters
names that appear to be significant but which frustrate one's, or at
least my, every attempt to work their significance into an overall
interpretation of the tale. I think of it as *allegoria interrupta*.
Is he just teasing us, or what?
RPN
RPN
Please mentally revise the second sentence of my posting above to read
". . . 'Larger Than Oneself' is one of the few Aickman tales that seem
to have been conceived . . ." My haste got the better of my syntax and
grammar there.
I thank you.
RPN
Chris Barker
Mr Superbus and Dr Bermuda are nomenclatures that are almost Dickensian in
tone. This facet of Aickman's - slipping from plausible names to quite
shocking ones - runs throughout his prose. You meet a great many people in
daily life, and only occasionally do you meet someone with a stand-still
shocking name, yet in Aickman's tales, we constantly meet people with the
most perplexing of monikers. It is almost as though Aickman the master
magician is seeking to draw our attention away from something.
I rather think that it is Eblis and not Iblis: certainly Eblis is quoted in
the Wakefield tale "He Cometh and He Passeth By..."
My own conclusion on Aickman's deliberate ambiguity (especially in terms of
his sexual ambiguity): he has his cake and he eats it.
PS. A quick internet trawl uncovers your true name, Mr RPN. You are not I
believe famous (no offence intended). Why hide behind letters?
RPN
> PS. A quick internet trawl uncovers your true name, Mr RPN. You are not I
> believe famous (no offence intended). Why hide behind letters?
I'm not hiding; if I were, you wouldn't have been able to find my name
in a "quick internet trawl." When I first started posting to this
group (back in the Horrornet days), Rob Suggs and Robert Kunath were
already prominent posters, and I figured that introducing another
Robert would lead to confusion. I don't see anything sinister in the
use of one's initials--or in the use of any handle other than one's
real name, for that matter.
RPN
blackfrancis
"blackfrancis" <ecker...@core.com> wrote in message news:...> news:56abacbc.02122...@posting.google.com...
Good One!!!
blackfrancis
>
>
>
>
>
>
blackfrancis
Chris Barker
Nah, that seems a pretty slim excuse to me. I think we can handle a Rob, a
Bob and a Robert in here without getting in too much of a twist. And I never
said it was "sinister" (just as I never said the possible molestation of Mrs
Iblis was "rape").
I can understand why people have obscure email addresses, but when it comes
to signing one's post, I am surprised that a few still don't use their real
name. Most people do: myself, Doug Anderson, Paul M, Todd, Jim R, the Rodens
etc etc. It just seems rather odd, that's all. Like sending an anonymous
letter, as opposed to putting your name to it. When it comes to responding
to a post, I, like many others I should imagine, always feel slightly warier
of someone who resorts to drawing a cloak of secrecy over their identity.
Still, at least you don't go in for ludicrous self-penned nicknames. But
still ironic that in a thread discussing the importance of people's names,
you sign of as RPN. Rather like the hoary old Victorian tales that started:
"The Very Revd A ..... Of M.... B.... in the County Of R...... once saw the
ill-famed spectre of T....."
David Anderson
> to signing one's post, I am surprised that a few still don't use their real
> letter, as opposed to putting your name to it. When it comes to responding
> to a post, I, like many others I should imagine, always feel slightly warier
> of someone who resorts to drawing a cloak of secrecy over their identity.
> Still, at least you don't go in for ludicrous self-penned nicknames.
You never thought it was odd or ludicrous when you were signing
yourself as "Jonathan Harker".
DJA
woolrich
http://www.trussel.com/books/pseudo.htm.
There are over 11,000 of them, and this list's by no means complete.
We couldn't all be a lot better off without "Saki" or "George Sand."
I think many perfectly justifiable reasons exist as to why a person,
author or otherwise, might use an alias: wish to speak freely on
controversial topics, modesty, wish to continue sales when one's
already a very prolific author, political expediency, retiring nature,
wish to write without worrying about how the world's going to perceive
your writing based on your race, sex, nationality, religion, etc. and
plenty of other reasons. So, just calm down. It's only when someone
abuses an alias that there's a moral imperative to call them down,
right?
I don't think anyone's been doing that here.
nboo...@yahoo.com (David Anderson) wrote in message news:<d12da66d.02122...@posting.google.com>...
blackfrancis
"woolrich" <grand_g...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2b4c9e85.02122...@posting.google.com...
> Look at all the aliases used by literary types on this site:
>
> http://www.trussel.com/books/pseudo.htm.
>
> There are over 11,000 of them, and this list's by no means complete.
>
> We couldn't all be a lot better off without "Saki" or "George Sand."
>
> I think many perfectly justifiable reasons exist as to why a person,
> author or otherwise, might use an alias: wish to speak freely on
> controversial topics, modesty, wish to continue sales when one's
> already a very prolific author, political expediency, retiring nature,
> wish to write without worrying about how the world's going to perceive
> your writing based on your race, sex, nationality, religion, etc. and
> plenty of other reasons. So, just calm down. It's only when someone
> abuses an alias that there's a moral imperative to call them down,
> right?
>
> I don't think anyone's been doing that here.
I do.
Merry Christmas everyone.
woolrich
> "woolrich" <grand_g...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2b4c9e85.02122...@posting.google.com...
> > Look at all the aliases used by literary types on this site:
> >
> > http://www.trussel.com/books/pseudo.htm.
> >
> > There are over 11,000 of them, and this list's by no means complete.
> >
> > We couldn't all be a lot better off without "Saki" or "George Sand."
> >
> > I think many perfectly justifiable reasons exist as to why a person,
> > author or otherwise, might use an alias: wish to speak freely on
> > controversial topics, modesty, wish to continue sales when one's
> > already a very prolific author, political expediency, retiring nature,
> > wish to write without worrying about how the world's going to perceive
> > your writing based on your race, sex, nationality, religion, etc. and
> > plenty of other reasons. So, just calm down. It's only when someone
> > abuses an alias that there's a moral imperative to call them down,
> > right?
> >
> > I don't think anyone's been doing that here.
>
> I do.
>
>
>
> Merry Christmas everyone.
Care to be more specific?
Chris Barker
I wish I hadn't started this. But to clarify my intentions:
Many people use pseuds for email ease or to deflect spam. I myself have
never been able to get the email address "Chris Barker" with any ISP I have
acred to use as it has always been taken by some other international
doppleganger, so have always had to pick names like Jonathan Harker or
Baskerville Hall etc. I also switch ISPs often to take advantage of free
introductory deals. But when posting to a very small group like
ghost-fiction where everyone seems known to everyone else, I have always let
my real identity be known to others, regardless of my email address moniker.
Thus whilst I have posted to this newsgroup under perhaps five different
email addresses, I have made it clear that it was me (Chris Barker) each
time.
***A pause while this sinks in with one or two highly suspicious parties who
have previously implied there was some dark paranoid reason why I had
occasionally switched ISPs."Gee? It was really that simple?"***
I think everyone should reveal their names if wishing to contribute to the
more detailed / heated of discussions, but if some people wish to veil their
identities, then fair enough, it is a free world, but they should accept the
odd disgruntlement from other users who do reveal their identities. It
implies an unequal playing field, or a masked ball in which only some are
masked. The only really valid excuse I can see for veiling identity is when
the veiler is a famous person who does not want to bothered with tedious
approaches from all and sundry. But either way, it is not a serious issue.
RPN addressed me as "Mr Barker". He addresses many others as
"Mr....whatever". My comment to him on this matter was meant to raise the
(minor) issue that we could not respond back in likewise fashion unless we
opted for the odd sounding Mr "RPN".
I'll disregard Mr Anderson's negative barb and instead offer up the
charitable hope that Santa might have brought him an Original Thought for
Christmas.
David Anderson
> up the charitable hope that Santa might have brought him an
> Original Thought for Christmas.
Ha, ha! Your "disregarding" is about as good as your "ignoring"!
And a blessed Yuletide to you too!
DJA