"The Same Dog" (to Bill B.) [beware! spoiler]
Dr. Nick
Read this one ages ago but remember it well. Are you sure the briefly
glimpsed (and possibly naked) man is actually a manifestation of the strange
dog? I have a feeling that fellow was like a former "owner" , if you will,
of the pooch. This honour is then conferred upon Mary after she is killed,
leading to that very odd ending with its cute little pun. That is all the
logic I can see in the story; beyond that it's all a big foggy ~MYSTERY~
ooooh.
James Michael Rogers
In article <3534b...@nachos.wr.com.au>, cro...@wr.com.au says...
thought that the man was an aspect of the protagonist's own misunderstood
(and dangerous) sexuality. Perhaps the later female phantom as well. Reminds
me in this respect, as well as that,of the suddenly vanishing heroine and
the missing mother figure, of Aickman's "The Fetch".
James
rba...@hotmail.com
Ah yes, that damn dog...
It all seems like sex to me. Hilary comes from an all-male family. Even his
mum is dead as the story opens. The whole structure of his relationship with
Mary Rossiter takes a 180 degree flip when Mary locks eyes with the dog, and
she suddenly becomes a grown-up, leaving poor Hilary alone with his innocence.
Compare the descriptions of the dog with the mysterious 'naked' man:
"It was a big, shapeless animal, with long, untidy legs, which shimmered
oddly , perhaps as it sought a firm grip on the buried and slippery stones.
The dog's yellow skin seemed almost hairless. Blotchy and draggled, it
resembled the wall outside. Even the dog's eyes were a flat, dull yellow."
And:
"...a man was looking over, installed at the very extremity of the internal
angle. There was about half of him visible, and he seemed tall and slender
and bald. Hilary failed to notice how he was dressed: if indeed, he was
dressed at all."
And Mary's 'death', described secondhand by Eileen:
"She was interfered with, and mauled about. Bitten all over, they say, poor
little thing. But it's been hushed up proper, and you'd better hurry and
forget all about her. That's all you *can* do, isn't it?"
And to the fabulous places on the maps Hilary and Mary drew as children,
Giantland and Fairyland, we must finally add 'Maryland', a place where Hilary
was barred from entering, by the subterfuguous designs of a mysterious adult
world he never did manage to be admitted to, or some such rot. "Perhaps
Hilary was one of those men who are designed for one woman only." He never
gets laid in THIS story, at any rate.
Or as Callcutt says, "Good God!"
rbadac
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
bbar...@peabody.jhu.edu
Fresh from rereading it, I have some comments that I'm sure you've been
anxiously awaiting. I see it as a tale of jealousy and jilted love.
In article <6h5ora$69t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
rba...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Compare the descriptions of the dog with the mysterious 'naked' man:
>
> "It was a big, shapeless animal, with long, untidy legs, which shimmered
> oddly , perhaps as it sought a firm grip on the buried and slippery stones.
> The dog's yellow skin seemed almost hairless. Blotchy and draggled, it
> resembled the wall outside. Even the dog's eyes were a flat, dull yellow."
>
> And:
>
> "...a man was looking over, installed at the very extremity of the internal
> angle. There was about half of him visible, and he seemed tall and slender
> and bald. Hilary failed to notice how he was dressed: if indeed, he was
> dressed at all."
The hairlessness is why I still believe the man and the dog are one and the
same. And I don't think there was an "owner" present at the initial
encounter because of the house's state of disrepair, and its subsequent
improvement under Mary's residence. As to the origin of the dog... I think
it's just a macguffin (ditto the contents of "The Inner Room", the briefcase
in Pulp Fiction, the contents of the church in "Hand in Glove"...) and don't
worry about it except as an exercise.
Mary is mesmerized by the dog, and Hilary feels the first pangs of jealousy.
Can one be jealous of a dog? That seems silly, so when Hilary looks back he
"sees" a man instead, legitimizing his jealousy.
> And Mary's 'death', described secondhand by Eileen:
>
> "She was interfered with, and mauled about. Bitten all over, they say, poor
> little thing. But it's been hushed up proper, and you'd better hurry and
> forget all about her. That's all you *can* do, isn't it?"
Or, she "left him" for the "dog". If a lover leaves us for another, is it not
a natural response to blame that other for "stealing" our love from us, and to
view that other as evil incarnate? (Not that I have any personal experience
along those lines, of course, I want that to be PERFECTLY CLEAR.) And I don't
think it's far-fetched that one might think of murder (in this case) as a
metaphor for the same thing. The dog claimed Mary just as Chapman claimed
Lennon.
Hilary never figures out what Mary sees (or saw) in the dog (animal magnetism
or the like) and thus never plays the mating game, not understanding the
rules. Hmm, I guess it is about sex after all. In that case the dog is a
symbol of sexuality, or what Hilary lacks.
Hmmm again, here is another story of a sexually naive, "sensitive" young man
going into the army, as in "Niemandswasser" in the same collection. Anyone
care to speculate on Aickman's attraction to that theme?
Bill B.
P.S. If this post doesn't make any sense it's because I'm up way past my
bedtime.
James Michael Rogers
In article <6h5ora$69t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, rba...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>And to the fabulous places on the maps Hilary and Mary drew as children,
>Giantland and Fairyland, we must finally add 'Maryland', a place where
Hilary
>was barred from entering, by the subterfuguous designs of a mysterious
adult
>world he never did manage to be admitted to, or some such rot. "Perhaps
>Hilary was one of those men who are designed for one woman only."
As Mary at one point says to him, "there can't always be a
gate, you know."
James
rba...@hotmail.com
In article <6h6dol$67b$1...@ionews.ionet.net>,
>
> As Mary at one point says to him, "there can't always be a
> gate, you know."
>
That's right. And there's always a dog with a bigger key!
>
rbad to worse
rba...@hotmail.com
In article <6h6ljp$903$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
bbar...@peabody.jhu.edu wrote:
>
>
> Hmmm again, here is another story of a sexually naive, "sensitive" young man
> going into the army, as in "Niemandswasser" in the same collection. Anyone
> care to speculate on Aickman's attraction to that theme?
>
>
You're in the Army now...
You're not BEHIND THE PLOW...
You'll never get rich
By DIGGING A DITCH
You're in the Army now!
Sgt. Badac
rba...@hotmail.com
rba...@hotmail.com
Dammit, if I had to accidentally post something twice, why couldn't it have
been something better than THAT bit of doggerel?
Oh, well, la de dah. At least it wasn't bulk e-mail.
kun...@hilltop.ic.edu
Dear Bill,
Thanks for an acute analysis of "The Same Dog." You ask if anyone has any
thoughts about Aickman's attraction to the situation of the sexually naive
young man, and I do have a pretty vague, general idea. Someone posted a
wonderful statement from Aickman (was it from one of the volumes of ghost
stories that he edited?) that his stories were meant to direct us at enormous
parts of ourselves of which we were unconscious (a bad paraphrase--sorry!).
The content of many of his stories is Freudian, not just in the prominence of
the erotic, but also in its depiction of powerful but inexplicable forces
acting upon people. The situation of the sexually naive young man--and the
subject of the erotic in general--is a consistent theme in Aickman's stories,
I think, because his "strange stories" above all want to depict the tension
between illusion (or fantasy) and reality, and there are very few situations
in which that tension is so marked as in the experience of sex. "The Swords"
is an especially straightforward example of that, as is "Marriage." What I
think Aickman likes about that situation is the collision between immature
sexual fantasy encountering the true (and, for Aickman, it would seem
destructive) power of sex. Quite a few of Aickman's stories follow that basic
plot line: along with "The Swords" and "Marriage," I'd add "Ravissante,"
"Never Visit Venice," and "The Stains." "Niemandswasser" doesn't quite fit
the pattern, but has similarities, as does "Meeting Mr. Millar" (which I just
re-read with enjoyment). I must say that Aickman seems to me to be the ONLY
writer of supernatural fiction that I have read who is able to treat the
erotic successfully. Horror all too often wants to combine sex and violence
for effect, and I find the combination ugly. Aickman combines sex and dread,
and that combination works, especially because of Aickman's exceptional
delicacy as a writer (and I would say that both the supernatural story and the
erotic story are successful only when a great deal is not described or
explained). The only writer I have ever encountered who has done something
similar with the erotic is Richard Adams in his novel *The Girl in a Swing.*
I'm looking forward to hearing other people's ideas!
Robert
In article <6h6ljp$903$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
bbar...@peabody.jhu.edu wrote:
>
> Fresh from rereading it, I have some comments that I'm sure you've been
> anxiously awaiting. I see it as a tale of jealousy and jilted love.
>
> In article <6h5ora$69t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Hmmm again, here is another story of a sexually naive, "sensitive" young man
> going into the army, as in "Niemandswasser" in the same collection. Anyone
> care to speculate on Aickman's attraction to that theme?
>
> Bill B.
>
> P.S. If this post doesn't make any sense it's because I'm up way past my
> bedtime.
>
Biddler
>Ah yes, that damn dog...It all seems like sex to me.
I'm glad you said it instead of me. After "The Trains," I didn't want to seem
to be Freddy Freud.
>she suddenly becomes a grown-up, leaving poor Hilary alone with >his
innocence.
Go back and reread the original description of Mary. She is described for most
of a page as something very like a doll. The boy has never been around a female
before. The wall, impregnable (!) with peeling surface is a fairly blatant
symbol. It's as much as secret as whatever's in The Inner Room.
And I did NOT want to deal with the naked, bald man poking up over the wall!
It gets a bit psychologically interesting at the end, whenCujo comes back for
his encore. It was clear that the dog appeared when Hilary, with his female
name, first approached awareness of his sexuality. What does this say about his
relationship to Callcutt? Then someone he interprets to be Mary (that's more
important than whether or not she really is Mary) suddenly emerges from the
grown-up, but still impregnable (!) structure that houses the dog.
That Aickman. That same Aickman.
Rob
Biddler
>Hilary never figures out what Mary sees (or saw) in the dog (animal >magnetism
I don't know about all that, but it seems to me that this points up the real
weakness of the story. The symbolism overwhelms the actual story-telling. The
story makes sense on the symbolic psychological terms that were trendy at
mid-century, but there are just a few too many narrative/logical lapses even
for Aickman. Compare two other stories here, "The Inner Room" and "The Trains,"
and it seems to me that those stories are easier to read completely on a
narrative level without worrying about the goldern symbolism. Any author owes
us that, unless he's writing for a bunch of anthropology professors or
something. "The Same Dog" is interesting, for sure, and actually more ghostly
than some of his stories, but it's ultimately an exercise in manipulating
imagery.
Rob
Biddler
Robert,
I just want to say that this is one of the most perceptive statements about
Aickman I've read here. Bravo. Particularly the last part about why so much of
the current eros/horror fusion doesn't work.
Any other opinions on "The Girl in a Swing?" I was afraid we'd get more little
rabbits. Worth reading?
Rob
William Allison
rba...@hotmail.com <rba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <6h6ljp$903$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> bbar...@peabody.jhu.edu wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> Hmmm again, here is another story of a sexually naive, "sensitive" young man
>> going into the army, as in "Niemandswasser" in the same collection. Anyone
>> care to speculate on Aickman's attraction to that theme?
>>
>>
>You're not BEHIND THE PLOW...
>You'll never get rich
>By DIGGING A DITCH
>You're in the Army now!
>
>Sgt. Badac
Hey Sarge, would that be Aickman's Army?
kun...@hilltop.ic.edu
In article <199804180552...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
bid...@aol.com (Biddler) wrote:
>
> Any other opinions on "The Girl in a Swing?" I was afraid we'd get more
little
> rabbits. Worth reading?
> Rob
>
Dear Rob,
Thanks for the kind words about my thoughts on Aickman, and I thought I'd add
a few words about "The Girl in a Swing." I'd recommend it as an interesting
example of a story that combines the erotic and the ghostly successfully.
"More little rabbits" it's not, guaranteed! The sexual aspect is somewhat
more explicit than in Aickman, but it is still handled with considerable
delicacy, and the supernatural elements are authentically ominous. To my mind
there is a central implausibility in the characterization, but it only emerges
at the end, at which time it's easy to forgive because so much of what's gone
before has been successful. I don't recommend the movie, though: it's very
hard to make an authentically ghostly movie, and it's very hard to make an
authentically erotic movie, and it's just about impossible to do both at once.
There's one particular passage in "The Girl in a Swing" that reminds me of
Aickman, where Adams talks about the power of the erotic, comparing it to a
sacred grove in which there are lovers and joy, but also corpses and horror.
That's the power that fuels a number of Aickman's best stories.
Robert
James Michael Rogers
In article <199804180552...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
bid...@aol.com says...
>
>Any other opinions on "The Girl in a Swing?" I was afraid we'd get more
little
>rabbits. Worth reading?
>Rob
_Girl On A Swing_ is very, very good. Nary a
rabbit in sight. Comparable to Aickman in some thematic respects, as well as
to stuff like _Picnic At Hanging Rock_. Another of those books where you say
"ghost story....I think".
James
rba...@hotmail.com
I don't recommend the movie, though: it's very
> hard to make an authentically ghostly movie, and it's very hard to make an
> authentically erotic movie, and it's just about impossible to do both at
once.
>
funny, either. I really should read the book. I liked Adams' little bunnies,
though, and I don't usually like little bunnies.
> There's one particular passage in "The Girl in a Swing" that reminds me of
> Aickman, where Adams talks about the power of the erotic, comparing it to a
> sacred grove in which there are lovers and joy, but also corpses and horror.
> That's the power that fuels a number of Aickman's best stories.
>
Indeed it does. The Little Death and the Big One. Allow me to add my congrats
to Robert for a fine analysis.
rbadac
rba...@hotmail.com
In article <199804180532...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
bid...@aol.com (Biddler) wrote:
>
> >Ah yes, that damn dog...It all seems like sex to me.
>
> I'm glad you said it instead of me. After "The Trains," I didn't want to
seem
> to be Freddy Freud.
>
rbadac (not that there's anything WRONG with that!)
rba...@hotmail.com
In article <6h9hvd$65g$1...@nntp.epix.net>,
But of course. And I'm probably quite presumptious giving myself the rank of
'Sergeant', but as we all know, being a Private in Aickman's Army puts one in
a rather 'high-risk' group, if you know what I mean.
On a remotely related note, is it just me, or have we been recently inundated
with posts of a RATHER salacious nature?
Either someone is reading even more into these Freudian observations of ours
than even we or Aickman ever thought possible, or we've been unfairly
targeted as a bunch of poor nerds who don't get out much.
Or maybe we've just been targeted, period. What a bummer. I don't guess there
is anything we can do about this, is there?
rbadac
kun...@hilltop.ic.edu
Maybe it is appropriate that we received this vile spam as an object lesson in
what makes Robert Aickman great: restraint, delicacy, and cultivation. This
x-rated spam is so lurid that it's ludicrous--this is what they think attracts
people to their product?! I do think it's terrible that these evil spammers
can inundate us with smut, though; I'd like to think that our ghost fiction
discussions are appropriate for those of more tender years and I hate having
our list filled this ugly stuff. I say we complain to the webmaster--I had
some problems with my registration and the e-mail address I got was:
Dejanews advertises "spam-free discussion" so I'm sure they'd love to screen
that stuff out.
Robert
In article <6hg5ha$pjb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
William Allison
rba...@hotmail.com <rba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>On a remotely related note, is it just me, or have we been recently inundated
>with posts of a RATHER salacious nature?
in a while- then I remembered my ISP has put spam-filtering into effect on
their news server. It appears to be working... :-)
>Either someone is reading even more into these Freudian observations of ours
>than even we or Aickman ever thought possible, or we've been unfairly
>targeted as a bunch of poor nerds who don't get out much.
Most of this junk is sent out in bulk across hundreds if not thousands of
newsgroups. For what it's worth, the computer-related groups I'm in are
more spam-riddled than a.b.g-f is...
>Or maybe we've just been targeted, period. What a bummer. I don't guess there
>is anything we can do about this, is there?
I went to Deja News and had a look and saw the offending posts. As I thought
"My Deja News" was supposed to be doing filtering, I joined, and went into
the group that way: if anything, the problem was worse than with standard Deja
News. I can only assume they are having problems with their filtering systems.
It still wouldn't hurt to write them and ask "What gives?". This spam deal is
an outright war- everytime effective ways of stopping it are created, ways are
found to get around it. It's not much different than junk-mail or telephone
sales people (yes it's far more crude, but the unwanted intrusion aspect is
the same). It's the dark side of the freedom-of-speech the Internet allows.
Bill
rba...@hotmail.com
Thanks, Bill, and also to Kunath (oops, forgot your name!)- I think I'll fire
off a grumpy missive to the good folks at DejaNews and see if they have any
suggestions. I'm sure they aren't any happier than we are about this.
William Allison
rba...@hotmail.com <rba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Thanks, Bill, and also to Kunath (oops, forgot your name!)- I think I'll fire
>off a grumpy missive to the good folks at DejaNews and see if they have any
>suggestions. I'm sure they aren't any happier than we are about this.
>
>rbadac
There must have been a spam-explosion over the weekend. I saw references
(not kind ones either) in the Straub, Ligotti, and P.K. Dick groups to the
problem. In the Iain Banks group too I think... Hopefully Deja will get
their filters working soon.
Bill