For Chris Barker
Gary Fry
Just read your fine story in SUPERNATURAL TALES. Enjoyed it a lot.
Best -
Gary Fry
Chris Barker
Many thanks for your kind words. My apologies for not posting sooner but I
thought it prudent to liase with David L to verify whether you really
existed! He informed this morning however that you are both a real person
and a real subscriber. No offence intended, but these are strange times, and
I have seen so much odd manipulation in newsgroups and chatrooms that I
wanted to be sure.....!
Writing THE THING IN THE TREE was an emotionally draining process. But I
decided a year or two back that it was a waste of everybody's time to write
poorly (by which I mean shallowly, insincerely, lightly, derivatively etc).
I don't like to waste my own time reading duff prose so why should I inflict
it on others? Also I reason that if I make the effort to write myself it
gives me more credibility as an editor. Writers inevitably respect editors
more if they can write tolerably well themselves. Ted Klein being a classic
case in point (though Ted writes rather more than tolerably well).
Anyway, glad you liked it. I have a half dozen more new stories in various
stages of completion. I have no plans to offer any of them to anyone except
David Longhorn at Supernatural Tales. David is an astute and broadminded
editor.
In fact, swerving very off topic, I am fast coming to the conclusion that
Davids Longhorn, Rowlands and Tibet deserve better recognition for their
respective efforts in the genre. All three have done much to further what I
would call positive interest in the ghost story. David Tibet trailblazed the
way for many small press publishers, and Davids R and L have through their
freely given and unprejudicial assistance encouraged a great many aspiring
writers. In my own case, for example, I have been extremley impressed that
despite the fact they vehemently disagree with the controversial opinion
that I have formed about M R James, they have never once let that difference
of opinion cloud their judgement on other dealings we have had. It's a
testament to their inate professionalism.
Chris Barker
The Haunted River
www.users.waitrose.com/~hauntedriver
"Gary Fry" <mjys...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a4hlb.940$1g5...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
Charles Cunningham
>
> In my own case, for example, I have been extremley impressed that
> despite the fact they vehemently disagree with the controversial opinion
> that I have formed about M R James, they have never once let that difference
> of opinion cloud their judgement on other dealings we have had. It's a
> testament to their inate professionalism.
>
Hi Chris,
I must have missed this...can you give me a condensed version of
your opinion of M.R. James? I would be intersted to compare it to my
own impressins.
Best,
Charles Cunningham
Chris Barker
"Charles Cunningham" <cunn...@jmu.edu> wrote in message
news:910d6026.03103...@posting.google.com...
Hi:
I don't want to repeat in detail the specific arguments about James's
sexuality and cruelty (which are featured respectively in the publications
PLAGARISM & PEDERASTY and WEIRDLY SUPERNATURAL 2) but I believe that in his
work James's betrays many powerful, barely suppressed urges. However, I am
happy to expand upon the wider issues e.g. why I hold such a forceful
opinion.
An author inescapably reveals something of themself through their work. I
was always taught to tease apart allusions / imagery / preoccupations when
critically evaluating prose - whether it be this Orwellian metaphor or that
Joycian ambiguity - and then to reassemble the references into a brighter,
more visible whole. Unfortunately this clinical (or illuminating) approach
will sometimes infuriate the romancers and
idolators; the true scholar, however, rarely takes offence. Hence my
comment about Messrs Rowlands and Longhorn; both of whom, I believe, hold
degrees; and both of whom, to my mind, possess healthy and tolerant
perspectives.
Some fans of Elvis furiously attack anyone who might dare suggest that 'the
King' was overweight and pumped full of drugs when he died. You can show
them authentic footage of a bloated corpse being carried into a mortuary and
an autopsy drug list as long as your arm, but they will still cry
"conspiracy!". But just who are these self-styled defenders of whatever
faith? Respected
journalists? Learned academics? Alas not. They are invariably homegrown
experts, or fan-club groupies, identifiable by their (Star) Trekkie habits
and duffle-coats. Another example. Yoko Ono has dedicated her life to
sweeping aside negative perspectives about John Lennon whilst trying to
portray him as something he clearly was not. Her motivation is slightly
different. Not only does she wish to bathe in reflective glory, but she has
a son to think of, and a very wealthy empire to oversee. But really, is her
chocolate-box portrait of Lennon to be believed?
M R James has his own fanclub base. Realistically it stretches from Ashtree
Press to
Ghosts & Scholars via The Everlasting Club and takes in many publishers,
writers and anthologists.
Many a genre authority has nailed his or her reputation to the Jamesian
cross. Indeed, some have a vested interest in rejecting unflattering
speculation about James: he is still in copyright, after all; people still
make money
from printing his books. Those who produce Jamesian product might fear
income loss if the whisper were to spread about his darker psyche. And even
if they did allow for such a view, they would surely alienate the copyright
holders if they expressed it publicly, because the c holders are themselves
semi-distant relatives of the great man. After all, Alice Liddell had to
field an unwelcome barrage of speculation about Lewis Carroll's interest in
her.
An additional concern is that some who have long
championned James - or those who have spoken authoriatively on the
subject - have a strong vested interest in dismissing
unwelcome speculation: their reputation and integrity is at stake. People
might ask why they hadn't spotted these issues, or wonder they opted to
ignore or downplay them. I don't for one minute doubt that the intentions
were pure - I am sceptical that there has been any attempt to cover up
paedophilia, for example - but unquestionably, these issues *have* been very
hastily glossed over by people who want instead to perpetuate a clean,
wholesome myth. Many people want to believe that James was a hero from one
of his own tales but they don't want to allow for the fact that he may have
also been one of the villains.
Finally, there is the politics of envy. If Richard Dalby or Rosemary Pardoe
had discovered the
source tale for The Ashtree, then people like Christopher Roden would have
been falling over themsleves to rush into print. No doubt Roden would have
eulogised elegaically in All Hallows about a 'wondrous find' by way of
advance plugging the scoop. Instead of which .......well, you can read about
it on my website. No impartial person could view the Jamesian
Establishment's response without forming a low opinion about their
professionalism.
I understand that Sigmund Freud was an unpopular man and that by the time of
his death he had fallen out with practically every other professional in the
field. (Freud being a particularly apt person to mention in this context!)
But should mere popularity abscribe merit to his or indeed anyone else's
discoveries? No. Arguments ultimately win or fall by their individual merit.
Those who seek to suppress valid if unpopular speculation will inevitably be
judged harshly by history.
I am not nor have ever been in a 'James Gang'. I've always nurtured a
healthy cynicism about hero-worship whether it be for Montague Rhodes James
or anyone else. Indeed, many of my favourite writers - Evelyn Waugh, Harold
Pinter, Robert Aickman - were by all accounts miserable, waspish,
curmudgeonly people. To put them on a hallowed pedestal just because their
creative endeavours were important would be ridiculous.
When fan groups mushroom into existence they often cultivate pecking orders.
Tinpot academic status can be assumed or abscribed by arbitrary means. What,
for example, is a 'Violet Books Site Award'? Is it an important democratic
award process in which independently validated experts rate a website
according to a professionally agreed scale? Or is it merely an extension of
childish playground behaviour, in which one self-appointed princess or queen
(royal, not camp) bestows homemade badges upon a coterie of admirers? I am
familiar with the basis by which Investors In People or Quality Assurance
accreditation is given, but the basis for the presentation of many
'fan-based' accolades is both bizarre and highly amusing.
It is perfectly valid to comment on this issue in the context of merit-based
speculation. One of the most sinister aspects of incestuous dogma is that
pften some of those within a given cabal bitterly resent anyone from the
mainstream commenting upon 'their' religion. Unless, of course, the outsider
prostrates him or herself sycophantically at the altar and allows them to
paw their cloven hooves through the offering.
I agree wholeheartedly that M R James was a brilliant writer of ghost
stories. But I don't for one moment believe that he was a cuddly, gentle,
humble, sexless, benign demigod, or that I shouldn't read anything
subversive into his work. Cuddly people don't bite - and James's fiction
*does* bite, *savagely*. Indeed, the reason why those stories are *so*
bitingly effective is because James clearly fought hard to suppress some
very
powerful, dark urges.
I believe that it is irresponsible to take pleasure from James's horrors
without experiencing some of the guilt. Those who refute that there is
anything disturbing in James's work are in emotional denial. Whenever a
mainstream critic strays into
this weird backwater of genre fiction and alights upon M R James, they
invariably raise concerns about his repressed homosexuality. We need to ask
'why?' No one
cares if he might be gay. Who would? No, they worry that there might be
*more* going on
than 'just' homosexuality.
Inexcusably, some people say that James furnished his readers with a 'very
pleasant terror'. What, pray, is pleasant about a sinister preoccupation
with child murder?
Or even the individual cases of savagery e.g. the throat-slitting of a
mentally subnormal girl? No, James's tales present us with deeply
*un*pleasant
terrors. To believe otherwise is self-deceiving. Indeed, to brand the
stories as 'pleasant' is indicative of an affectation that wishes to empower
James's fiction with a cultured suavity that in actuality simply masks a
very dark pecadillo.
There. Quite enough speculation and controversy to galvanise the
eagerly-offended hypocrites in certain other newsgroups......... If you want
a comprehensive analysis of cruelty and sadism in the Jamesian
tale, I am afraid that you will have to procure a copy of WEIRDLY
SUPERNATURAL 2.....!
TTFN,
Chris
The Haunted River
www.users.waitrose.com/~hauntedriver
Karen 23 Elliot
pamphlet, also his stories, and I know MR James's stuff aswell, so
here goes:-
"Chris Barker" <hauntedHIDEOUSDEA...@waitrose.com> wrote in message news:<hbidnW0lUO7...@brightview.com>...
> I don't want to repeat in detail the specific arguments about James's
> sexuality and cruelty (which are featured respectively in the publications
> PLAGARISM & PEDERASTY and WEIRDLY SUPERNATURAL 2) but I believe that in his
> work James's betrays many powerful, barely suppressed urges.
what, more so than any other writer of ghost stories? more so than,
say, Mr Oliver, whose stories you publish? more so than yourself?
fraid I don't quite buy this line of argument.
> An author inescapably reveals something of themself through their work. I
> was always taught to tease apart allusions / imagery / preoccupations when
> critically evaluating prose - whether it be this Orwellian metaphor or that
> Joycian ambiguity - and then to reassemble the references into a brighter,
> more visible whole.
but that's not how your pamphlet comes across! [Sorry.]
> Unfortunately this clinical (or illuminating) approach will sometimes
> infuriate the romancers and idolators; the true scholar, however, rarely
> takes offence. Hence my comment about Messrs Rowlands and Longhorn; both of
> whom, I believe, hold degrees; and both of whom, to my mind, possess healthy
> and tolerant perspectives.
does having a degree make that much difference? obviously, I suppose,
or you wouldn't have mentioned it. [er, why DID you mention it, if
you don't mind my asking?] oh, and before you ask, a 2:1, but not in
anything relevant . . . .
> Some fans of Elvis furiously attack anyone who might dare suggest that 'the
> King' was overweight and pumped full of drugs when he died. You can show
> them authentic footage of a bloated corpse being carried into a mortuary and
> an autopsy drug list as long as your arm, but they will still cry
> "conspiracy!". But just who are these self-styled defenders of whatever
> faith? Respected journalists? Learned academics? Alas not. They are
> invariably homegrown experts, or fan-club groupies, identifiable by their
> (Star) Trekkie habits and duffle-coats.
so, by the same token, just who are you? i'm not being funny here,
just pointing out that when you point the finger at someone else, four
more fingers point back at YOU. . . . and isn't it a bit showoffy
anyway, all this waving quals around?
> M R James has his own fanclub base. Realistically it stretches from Ashtree
> Press to Ghosts & Scholars via The Everlasting Club and takes in many
> publishers, writers and anthologists. Many a genre authority has nailed his
> or her reputation to the Jamesian cross. Indeed, some have a vested interest
> in rejecting unflattering speculation about James: he is still in copyright,
> after all; people still make money from printing his books. Those who
> produce Jamesian product might fear income loss if the whisper were to
> spread about his darker psyche. And even if they did allow for such a view,
> they would surely alienate the copyright holders if they expressed it
> publicly, because the c holders are themselves semi-distant relatives of the
> great man. After all, Alice Liddell had to field an unwelcome barrage of
> speculation about Lewis Carroll's interest in her.
not sure what the part about Alice and Lewis Carroll has to do with
it, other than to bring in the whole kiddy fiddling thing? but as for
James - i suppose if you're in print for like 100 years or whatever,
then your reputation can stand a few knocks in the small press, no?
> An additional concern is that some who have long
> championned James - or those who have spoken authoriatively on the
> subject - have a strong vested interest in dismissing
> unwelcome speculation: their reputation and integrity is at stake.
ah, but is that vested interest equal to your own in causing
controversy where none is generally thought to exist, though? again,
i don't mean to be rude, I'm just curious. . . .
> people might ask why they hadn't spotted these issues, or wonder they opted
> to ignore or downplay them. I don't for one minute doubt that the intentions
> were pure - I am sceptical that there has been any attempt to cover up
> paedophilia, for example - but unquestionably, these issues *have* been very
> hastily glossed over by people who want instead to perpetuate a clean,
> wholesome myth. Many people want to believe that James was a hero from one
> of his own tales but they don't want to allow for the fact that he may have
> also been one of the villains.
ok, maybe some people do look at him through rose tinted specs, but is
the way you look at him borne out by the evidence you present? i
don't think so, personally. but that's only my opinion. . . .
> Finally, there is the politics of envy. If Richard Dalby or Rosemary Pardoe
> had discovered the
> source tale for The Ashtree, then people like Christopher Roden would have
> been falling over themsleves to rush into print. No doubt Roden would have
> eulogised elegaically in All Hallows about a 'wondrous find' by way of
> advance plugging the scoop. Instead of which .......well, you can read about
> it on my website. No impartial person could view the Jamesian
> Establishment's response without forming a low opinion about their
> professionalism.
i visited Ghosts and scholars website, it looks fine to me. lots of
links, resources and no snide sniping at the competition. [er, you
might like to think about that last in relation to your own site, Mr
Barker. . . . all that bitching is not particularly funny or
enlightening, and infact it just makes you looklike a saddo. . . .
which I'm sure is not the case.] the Ash Tree site could be updated
more often, but is okay, again it seems to get by without bitching.
> I understand that Sigmund Freud was an unpopular man and that by the time of
> his death he had fallen out with practically every other professional in the
> field. (Freud being a particularly apt person to mention in this context!)
> But should mere popularity abscribe merit to his or indeed anyone else's
> discoveries? No. Arguments ultimately win or fall by their individual merit.
> Those who seek to suppress valid if unpopular speculation will inevitably be
> judged harshly by history.
rather grandiose here????? surely you don't suggest you are the new
Sik-mind Fraud?
> When fan groups mushroom into existence they often cultivate pecking orders.
> Tinpot academic status can be assumed or abscribed by arbitrary means. What,
> for example, is a 'Violet Books Site Award'? Is it an important democratic
> award process in which independently validated experts rate a website
> according to a professionally agreed scale? Or is it merely an extension of
> childish playground behaviour, in which one self-appointed princess or queen
> (royal, not camp) bestows homemade badges upon a coterie of admirers? I am
> familiar with the basis by which Investors In People or Quality Assurance
> accreditation is given, but the basis for the presentation of many
> 'fan-based' accolades is both bizarre and highly amusing.
ok, so does this approach follow through to awards e.g. the world
fantasy awards? and what does IIP have to do with the price of milk?
> It is perfectly valid to comment on this issue in the context of merit-based
> speculation. One of the most sinister aspects of incestuous dogma is that
> pften some of those within a given cabal bitterly resent anyone from the
> mainstream commenting upon 'their' religion. Unless, of course, the outsider
> prostrates him or herself sycophantically at the altar and allows them to
> paw their cloven hooves through the offering.
no, no, stop right there. this is just bad writing, florid,
overblown. [as per your fiction, which is plotted well enough but
could definitely stand some trimming when it comes to adjectives. . .
. hope you don't mind my commenting on this, it just came to mind
while wading through the above!]
> I agree wholeheartedly that M R James was a brilliant writer of ghost
> stories. But I don't for one moment believe that he was a cuddly, gentle,
> humble, sexless, benign demigod, or that I shouldn't read anything
> subversive into his work.
intentionally subversive, or subliminal, or subconscious? or all 3!?
> Cuddly people don't bite - and James's fiction *does* bite, *savagely*.
> Indeed, the reason why those stories are *so* bitingly effective is because
> James clearly fought hard to suppress some
> very powerful, dark urges.
not at all clear actually. . . . or not to anyone but you, maybe!
> I believe that it is irresponsible to take pleasure from James's horrors
> without experiencing some of the guilt.
i'm sorry. this is just noise, and rather grandiloquent noise at
that. . . .
> Those who refute that there is anything disturbing in James's work are in
> emotional denial.
do you mean deny, rather than refute? a refutation usually implies
proof and therefore ought to be acceptable to your scholarly
requirements as laid out above. . . .
> Whenever a
> mainstream critic strays into
> this weird backwater of genre fiction and alights upon M R James, they
> invariably raise concerns about his repressed homosexuality. We need to ask
> 'why?'
err. . . because for the last 75 years the preferred paradigm of
litcrit has been a Freudian one? and some people like to think they
understand Freud better than they actually do???
> No one
> cares if he might be gay.
no one but YOU, eh!!!!
> Who would? No, they worry that there might be
> *more* going on
> than 'just' homosexuality.
again, do they?
> Inexcusably, some people say that James furnished his readers with a 'very
> pleasant terror'.
surely you must recognise the quotation here. . . .
> What, pray, is pleasant about a sinister preoccupation
> with child murder?
that's just not proven. . . .
> Or even the individual cases of savagery e.g. the throat-slitting of a
> mentally subnormal girl?
what, and no other writer ever wrote about nasty things? why assume
James really wanted to do what he has his villains and ghosts do?
this is the most specious part of your whole argument and it falls
down at the slightest examination. sorry, but it DOES!
> No, James's tales present us with deeply
> *un*pleasant
> terrors. To believe otherwise is self-deceiving. Indeed, to brand the
> stories as 'pleasant' is indicative of an affectation that wishes to empower
> James's fiction with a cultured suavity that in actuality simply masks a
> very dark pecadillo.
simply not proven, I'm afraid. . . .
> There. Quite enough speculation and controversy to galvanise the
> eagerly-offended hypocrites in certain other newsgroups.........
consider me galvanised then. . . .
k23e
Chris Barker
anonymous 'sock-puppet
' with a proper response. The opinion it expresses is vague and
insubstantial. Certainly it cannot be accorded the status of an
'argument'. In fact the 'opinion' consists of nothing more than
a succession of unqualified personal jibes.
The sentiments contained therein strongly echo those raised previously by
Certain Parties. Either it *is* one of that Certain Party or it is in
obvious sympathy with them. In fact, the claim by this puppet that it has
*only now*
chanced across the various websites concerned (a.b.g.f, G&S, Ash Tree and
The Haunted River)
is a highly implausible one. Elsewhere it claims much familiarity with all
things Jamesian, my publications and of course Supernatural Tales.
(Strangely enough, there is no 'Karen' on our customer files.)
No, the post just doesn't fit together properly. Lies and
subterfuge appear to be jostling visibly beneath the surface. I've seen
similar sock-puppetry before in almost exactly the same style in this
newsgroup. I smell a rat.
'Karen' might simply be a sock puppet spoiler, designed to counteract the
kind praise that my stories have elicited in this newsgroup and in the
letters pages of ST. It seems possible that 'Karen' could be nothing more
than a jealous or embittered rival.Certain Parties have previously gone out
of their way to counteract praise in respect of *everything* I or The
Haunted River have ever done whenever it has been forthcoming. 'Karen's'
anonymous criticisms might be nothing more than part of the same relay race.
"Karen" does much to undermine the group with its
negative and seemingly anonymous habitses. If it wants to be
taken seriously it must de-cloakses, yes it must, and offer up well-reasoned
arguments. Not silly Hobbitt riddles.
For starters that would mean actually familiarising itself with the as-yet
unpublished article on James in the forthcoming issue of WEIRDLY
SUPERNATURAL, as opposed to dismissing it, ignorantly, in advance.
In the meantime, if anyone alive and identifiable wishes to discuss the
specific arguments
made about M R James in the previously published chapbook PLAGIARISM &
PEDERASTY in a
professional and responsible manner then I will happily correspond.
Chris Barker
(A real person)
THE HAUNTED RIVER
www.users.waitrose.com/~hauntedriver
Karen 23 Elliot
> Obviously I am not going to dignify a post made by what appears to be an
> anonymous 'sock-puppet
> ' with a proper response.
shame. . . . also a shame that you don't feel the rest of the group
deserve a "proper response". as it is, i suppose we'll never know
whether any of my points hit home, will we? i'll feel free to make
whatever inferences seem most likely. . . .
> The opinion it expresses is vague and
> insubstantial. Certainly it cannot be accorded the status of an
> 'argument'. In fact the 'opinion' consists of nothing more than
> a succession of unqualified personal jibes.
quel coincidence! that's one of the things people say about your
debating style! perhaps we're two of a kind, eh?
> The sentiments contained therein strongly echo those raised previously by
> Certain Parties. Either it *is* one of that Certain Party or it is in
> obvious sympathy with them.
this is such a strange thing to say! "i like toast!" "me too!"
"shut up you!, your comment strongly echoes one made by a Certain
Party with whom you are in Obvious Sympathy! i don't believe you
really like toast!"
> In fact, the claim by this puppet that it has
> *only now*
> chanced across the various websites concerned (a.b.g.f, G&S, Ash Tree and
> The Haunted River)
> is a highly implausible one. Elsewhere it claims much familiarity with all
> things Jamesian, my publications and of course Supernatural Tales.
> (Strangely enough, there is no 'Karen' on our customer files.)
oh, i don't subscribe to your fine publications i'm afraid. a friend
showed me a copy. . . . is this a problem? likewise supernatural
tales. as for the web sites, i didn't chance across them, i searched
for them. relying on chance to find web sites would be enjoyable &
possibly informative i have no doubt, but more than a little
time-consuming. . . .
> No, the post just doesn't fit together properly. Lies and
> subterfuge appear to be jostling visibly beneath the surface. I've seen
> similar sock-puppetry before in almost exactly the same style in this
> newsgroup. I smell a rat.
how gallant of you! but i dare say i shall stagger on without losing
too much sleep. . . . won't you please shoot down some of my points
in flames though? then i shall feel all chastised and belittled. . .
.
> 'Karen' might simply be a sock puppet spoiler, designed to counteract the
> kind praise that my stories have elicited in this newsgroup and in the
> letters pages of ST. It seems possible that 'Karen' could be nothing more
> than a jealous or embittered rival.
oh please! okay, one of us comes across as just a little bitter, but
i don't think it's me. . . .
> Certain Parties have previously gone out
> of their way to counteract praise in respect of *everything* I or The
> Haunted River have ever done whenever it has been forthcoming. 'Karen's'
> anonymous criticisms might be nothing more than part of the same relay race.
"might", but aren't. i was under the impression that when i agreed
for my name to appear in connection with my posts, then that meant i
was forgoing that whole anonymity thing. . . . but obviously things
are not what they seem. deep waters indeed - i wish i'd never
mentioned it now. . . . but this being the world wide webby thing and
all, i just thought it would be okay to raise a few points i was
genuinely curious about. now you go all crappy on me! i read your
previous posts and saw this happen before, but still i thought i'd
persevere. perhaps i can change him, i thought. . . . but no, it was
not to be.
> "Karen" does much to undermine the group with its
> negative and seemingly anonymous habitses.
bloody hell! one post and i'm a bad bad girl! does anyone else think
i've been naughty, and i should leave the room?
> If it wants to be
> taken seriously it must de-cloakses, yes it must, and offer up well-reasoned
> arguments. Not silly Hobbitt riddles.
well, you could set an example by responding to a few of those points
i raised the other day, couldn't you? or am i too much of a certain
party? perhaps you could publish a list of names, so we can all
check.
> For starters that would mean actually familiarising itself with the as-yet
> unpublished article on James in the forthcoming issue of WEIRDLY
> SUPERNATURAL, as opposed to dismissing it, ignorantly, in advance.
and how precisely could i familiarise myself with something you
haven't published yet? mind reading perchance? oh, i get it - you
mean to say i shouldn't have written anything about any of your
previous publications until i've read all your future publications, is
that it? fairy nuff. i certainly shan't be in a hurry to renew our
acquaintance one-to-one, i can tell you that. . . .
> In the meantime, if anyone alive and identifiable wishes to discuss the
> specific arguments
> made about M R James in the previously published chapbook PLAGIARISM &
> PEDERASTY in a
> professional and responsible manner then I will happily correspond.
well i notice ramsey campbell had a go at doing that a month or so
back, and the whole thing degenerated into a bit of a confused flurry,
all smoke and steam and no visible conclusions. if on the other hand
that last bit was an invitation to me to correspond, then you'll have
to be a lot nicer in future!
> Chris Barker
> (A real person)
> THE HAUNTED RIVER
well, certainly no one could invent you! [sorry! evil mouth i have on
me sometimes]
k23e
Chris Barker
"Karen 23 Elliot" <Karen2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:81689aa6.03110...@posting.google.com...
James Doig
like to add a couple of related points of my own.
I think you misconstrue the expression "a pleasant terror". It does
not convey a view that James's ghost stories are in any way mild.
Quite the opposite in fact. A.E. Coppard meant much the same when he
spoke of "Fearful Pleasures", and Russell Kirk of "fearful joy". The
fact is, there is a pleasure in being frightened, which is why,
presumably, we read ghost and horror stories. The milder a ghost
story, the less pleasurable, at least for me! Which is why I've
always been a fan of James's ghost stories.
When James writes of a child murderer or a grisly murder of the
innocent, he is setting a moral context, not setting out some sort of
wish fulfillment fantasy. That fine Jamesian ANL Munby wrote a
classic tale about a child murderer, Herodes Redivivus. Can we
extrapolate that Munby was a pederast?
In my view, what James is doing is creating a moral context. There is
a moral fulfillment behind these tales that, I think, indicates
something of James's deeply religious views – thus, in Lost Hearts,
the murdered children take their revenge on the evil Mr Abney, and the
moral order is restored (the source of some relief or ‘pleasure' to
some of us readers!).
Cheers
James
Chris Barker
news:a0927d9b.03110...@posting.google.com...
> K23E raises some good points about your essay on MR James. I'd just
> like to add a couple of related points of my own.
>
I disagree. I think that you've raised some interesting points whereas
"Karen's" post consisted of a small handful of lazily argued criticisms that
were little more than an excuse to slip in a few barbed asides. There were
no sly jibes in your own post.
> I think you misconstrue the expression "a pleasant terror". It does
> not convey a view that James's ghost stories are in any way mild.
> Quite the opposite in fact. A.E. Coppard meant much the same when he
> spoke of "Fearful Pleasures", and Russell Kirk of "fearful joy". The
> fact is, there is a pleasure in being frightened, which is why,
> presumably, we read ghost and horror stories. The milder a ghost
> story, the less pleasurable, at least for me! Which is why I've
> always been a fan of James's ghost stories.
>
I agree with the general point that in reading a ghost story the reader
obtains a visceral thrill e.g. a pleasant terror. However, in the context of
the underlying themes in the work of some authors, I think that the
description 'pleasant' can become both ominous and ironic. James's sexual
interest in adolescent males and his fictional depictions of acts of
violence has always made me uncomfortable. (I also have concerns about
James's misogyny and his superiority complex).
The particular term 'pleasant terror' has I believe been very lazily
employed by successive parties when pushing Jamesian product. I remember
squirming with discomfort when I first watched the Anglia TV documentary
which bore that same title. I didn't find the unsettling musical score or
the sinister view of an elderly schoolmaster glaring with cold malignance
into the camera even faintly 'pleasant'.
I believe that the adjective 'pleasant' is inappropriate when it comes to
discussing M R James. My dictionary defines 'pleasant' as: 'pleasing,
agreeable, inoffensive, affable, good-humoured, cheerful, gay'. It also
describes 'pleasing' somewhat more sinisterly as 'delightful, gratifying,
pleasure-seeking'.
Some of the lighter and more affable ghost stories by Pain, Hartley, Dunsany
or de la Mare might be deemed pleasant or pleasing, but I sincerely believe
that one cannot apply that same description to M R James. I suspect that the
description has been too quickly alighted upon without ever being
satisfactorily challenged, hence the stereotypical that all things Jamesian
are 'pleasing terrors'.
I also believe that James's innate snobbery has rubbed off on certain of his
admirers (not you, I hasten to add). In that context the wish to perpetuate
a honeyed 'pleasing' sterotype whilst overlooking the deeper psychological
issues suggested in James's ghost stories makes the moniker all the more
ironic. As Jonathan Miller once wryly observed, there is something
*un*pleasant about the superior, affected, women-hating, port-bibbing world
in which these stories were originally conceived.
> When James writes of a child murderer or a grisly murder of the
> innocent, he is setting a moral context, not setting out some sort of
> wish fulfillment fantasy. That fine Jamesian ANL Munby wrote a
> classic tale about a child murderer, Herodes Redivivus. Can we
> extrapolate that Munby was a pederast?
>
Here we disagree. My lengthy argument on this particular point forms the
basis of the new article in WEIRDLY SUPERNATURAL 2.
> In my view, what James is doing is creating a moral context. There is
> a moral fulfillment behind these tales that, I think, indicates
> something of James's deeply religious views - thus, in Lost Hearts,
> the murdered children take their revenge on the evil Mr Abney, and the
> moral order is restored (the source of some relief or 'pleasure' to
> some of us readers!).
>
I believe that James cloaks his darker obsessions behind this veneer of
moral fulfillment.
> Cheers
>
> James
A nice post raising some interesting issues.
I've drawn upon various independent reference sources for the new article,
including quotations from a former Etonian who enlightened me about certain
aspects of public school life which have a direct bearing on these issues.
I would also like to say that over the last year or so a great many people
have contacted me to advise that they agree with my Jamesian opinions,
including at least three occasional posters to this very group. So whilst it
might appear that in the heavily-manipulated world of the internet, where
discussion forums and sock puppets are dexterously orchestrated, that my
opinion appears to be an unpopular one, it does in fact have greater support
amongst the 'unchattering' classes. I genuinely believe that in a few short
years a revised opinion about the whole M R James myth will gain credence.
Hopefully that new opinion will reflect concerns for the dark psychological
preoccupations that underscore James's excellent ghost stories.
I say let's cast aside the rose-tinted spectacles. Let's have twenty-twenty
vision.
TTFN,
Chris
Todd T
> "James Doig" <james...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:a0927d9b.03110...@posting.google.com...
> > not convey a view that James's ghost stories are in any way mild.
> > Quite the opposite in fact. A.E. Coppard meant much the same when he
> > spoke of "Fearful Pleasures", and Russell Kirk of "fearful joy". The
> > fact is, there is a pleasure in being frightened, which is why,
> > presumably, we read ghost and horror stories. The milder a ghost
> > story, the less pleasurable, at least for me! Which is why I've
> > always been a fan of James's ghost stories.
> >
>
> I agree with the general point that in reading a ghost story the reader
> obtains a visceral thrill e.g. a pleasant terror. However, in the context
of
> the underlying themes in the work of some authors, I think that the
> description 'pleasant' can become both ominous and ironic. James's sexual
> interest in adolescent males and his fictional depictions of acts of
> violence has always made me uncomfortable. (I also have concerns about
> James's misogyny and his superiority complex).
>
> The particular term 'pleasant terror' has I believe been very lazily
> employed by successive parties when pushing Jamesian product. I remember
> squirming with discomfort when I first watched the Anglia TV documentary
> which bore that same title. I didn't find the unsettling musical score or
> the sinister view of an elderly schoolmaster glaring with cold malignance
> into the camera even faintly 'pleasant'.
>
You've struck on an interesting conundrum I often stumble over when trying
to convey my appreciation for a story that is not conducive to jollity. If
one says one "enjoyed" a story with unpleasantness in it, one gets into the
issue of whether one enjoyed the effectiveness of the story, or got his
jollies from grue, violence or terror. I am repelled by visual gore, yet I
"enjoyed" SAVING PRIVATE RYAN for its portrayals of the hopeless nightmares
and moral fog soldiers must blunder through, even when their overarching
cause is noble. How to express this in a word or two? I have always
struggled with this, and generally say something like "it's a good story" as
opposed to expressing pleasure of any kind. But there is that sense with
much horror fiction, especially ghost fiction, of being chilled in a way
that we know will pass and thus brings a smile with the shiver. Is this
pleasure? I think it is fair to say it is.
- Todd T.
Chris Barker
"Todd T" <tttN...@megapipe.net> wrote in message
news:10683415...@cache6.usenetserver.com...
I agree, conundrum it is. I suppose the practical solution is to accord a
story the merit of excellence / brilliance / etcetera, but to then qualify
that with a suitably appropriate adjective e.g. disquietingly excellent,
sinisterly brilliant, grimly impressive.
Take Machen, for example. I would be unwilling to describe THE GREAT GOD PAN
as possessing a pleasing terror. Equally I would be unwilling to describe it
as beautiful, even though one could argue that aspects of Machen's prose are
beautiful. By their very nature the best ghost stories *must* possess a
frightening / subversive / harrowing element to them, which necessarily
requires a qualification of any positive literary praise. I suppose it must
also be linked to the fact that ghost stories represent a subgenre of 'pure'
mainstream prose.
I believe that those ghost or fantasy stories that are not underscored with
effective fear or horror can be fairly termed 'pleasant'. This might apply
to humorous / juvenile tales, spiritually uplifting fantasies and truly
poetic prose.
Returning to James, if his work had been described as possessing a
'thrilling terror' I would be far happier. Clearly his stories do send a
shiver down one's spine, and we the reader eagerly crave horrific revelation
after horrific revelation. Whilst James's denouements are not graphically
bloody, they are unflinchingly brutal and, in some cases, overtly sadistic.
Yet his work has often been portrayed as being upper middle class in its
delivery, in which benign academics tut-tut over the ungentlemanly horrors
unfolding before their eyes. I don't think that is enough to make the
stories 'pleasant', especially when one reflects upon the dark psychological
undercurrents that seem to be shaping the stories.
There were no whispers about Walter de la Mare's cruelty or his sexual
inclinations. Nor do we have no sinister smotherings of children or
throat-slittings of sexually active idiot girls in his ghost stories;
instead, there are vague ghosts weaving in and out of hauntingly beautiful
prose. I therefore believe that we can reasonably term WdlM's tales
'pleasant' in a way that we surely cannot when it comes to M R James.
TTFN,
Chris
nomis
"Chris Barker" <hauntedHIDEOUSDEA...@waitrose.com>
wrote:
Is it possible though you are mis-reading the statement? Rather than a
qualifier for "terror", couldn't it be a comment on the feeling of the
reader?
It's a little difficult for me to differentiate between the two, though
I'll try. A "pleasant terror" need not mean that the terror itself is
pleasant, only that the feeling one gets from reading it is pleasant.
I've read "The Great God Pan" and though nothing pleasant happens in it,
the feelings of fear or awe or what have you have been pleasant ones for
me. Could a story invoke more than pleasantry? Sure, but I imagine those
are more of the "thriller" tales. Ghostly and weirdly fiction tends, to
this eye at least, to be a little more subdued.
Pleasant isn't really a bad thing in my book.
nomis
home to _Withered Spirits: The Works of Terry Lamsley_
and _The Big F Webpage_ (diehards unite!)
Rick Kennett
Which James ghost story are you refering to here, Chris?
Rick
Chris Barker
"Rick Kennett" <ken...@visto.com> wrote in message
news:1c65879.03110...@posting.google.com...
> > throat-slittings of sexually active idiot girls
>
> Which James ghost story are you refering to here, Chris?
>
> Rick
Hi Rick:
Martin's Close. The one in which Ann Clark - a young female simpleton - is
murdered by the evil squire after having he seduces her. By a bizarre twist,
James makes this unfortunate victim *ugly*. Where does that leftfield issue
come from?
There are a very small number of Jamesian tales in which sex plays a visible
part in the proceedings, and they are often the most disturbing. Look what
happens to the sexually active Lord Saul in 'A Residence At Whitminster' for
example.
TTFN,
Chris
Chris Barker
> comes to
> > discussing M R James. My dictionary defines 'pleasant' as: 'pleasing,
> > agreeable, inoffensive, affable, good-humoured, cheerful, gay'. It also
> > describes 'pleasing' somewhat more sinisterly as 'delightful,
gratifying,
> > pleasure-seeking'.
> >
> > Some of the lighter and more affable ghost stories by Pain, Hartley,
Dunsany
> > or de la Mare might be deemed pleasant or pleasing, but I sincerely
believe
> > that one cannot apply that same description to M R James. I suspect that
the
> > description has been too quickly alighted upon without ever being
> > satisfactorily challenged, hence the stereotypical that all things
Jamesian
> > are 'pleasing terrors'.
>
> experiencing terror or fear be pleasurable? L.P. Hartley understood
> the absurdity of it: "Even the most impassioned devotee of the ghost
> story would admit that the taste for it is slightly abnormal, a
> survival perhaps, from adolescence, a disease of deficiency suffered
> by those whose lives and imaginations do not react satisfactorily to
> normal experience and require an extra thrill."
>
> James certainly knew how to send a shiver down the spine because he
> knew what frightened him. He wrote about those things in the belief
> that what frightened him would frighten others. I suspect that, like
> most of us, he learned what frightened him as a child - hairy,
> visceral, tactile things; the face at the window; the touch on the
> shoulder; flesh sucked from a face; slashed neck; the murder of a
> child. Finding this type of thing frightening is quite normal - and
> James was "normal" enough to realise that.
>
>
> > I also believe that James's innate snobbery has rubbed off on certain of
his
> > admirers (not you, I hasten to add). In that context the wish to
perpetuate
> > a honeyed 'pleasing' sterotype whilst overlooking the deeper
psychological
> > issues suggested in James's ghost stories makes the moniker all the more
> > ironic. As Jonathan Miller once wryly observed, there is something
> > *un*pleasant about the superior, affected, women-hating, port-bibbing
world
> > in which these stories were originally conceived.
>
> for long afterwards, the world of Tolkien and CS Lewis as much as
> James.
>
>
> > I've drawn upon various independent reference sources for the new
article,
> > including quotations from a former Etonian who enlightened me about
certain
> > aspects of public school life which have a direct bearing on these
issues.
>
> public school boy. He was read James's ghost stories as a child and
> loved them for the rest of his life.
>
> I genuinely believe that in a few short
> > years a revised opinion about the whole M R James myth will gain
credence.
> > Hopefully that new opinion will reflect concerns for the dark
psychological
> > preoccupations that underscore James's excellent ghost stories.
> >
>
> evidence, something more than what seems to be one or two ambiguous
> quotes and the evidence of his own writings. For mind, your plea for
> a pederast James appears strained and unhelpful.
>
> James
With respect, there are a large number of quite specific quotations from
many respected parties, not just one or two. I haven't totted up the number
of people - whether they be contemporaries of James or later critics - but I
am sure that at least ten 'respectable' people have gone on record
registering concerns about these issues.
Don't forget that when James was alive, homosexuality was a criminal offence
punishable by a custodial sentence. Clearly that would impact upon how he
and others would publicly discuss the issue of homosexuality. And as for the
clues buried in his own writing, there are a *great* many. To analyse them
is perfectly legitimate. Why, much analysis of pointless Jamesian references
has occured elsewhere e.g. what cathedral features in this story etc etc.
How can it possibly be wrong to look at these bigger psychological issues?
I don't think the argument is in anyway strained. However, I do think that
those who wish to perpetuate a rose-tinted myth about James have been
straining themselves to dismiss valid speculation about these issues. They
argue that in the absence of a signed statement from this or that Old
Etonian, testifying to a homosexual affair with M R J, that such conjecture
is (to borrow your own description) 'unhelpful'. Well, I think it extremely
unlikely that any first-hand evidence will ever be forthcoming on this
matter; ditto for the sex lives of Arthur Machen and William Hope Hodgson.
So what? Should this stop us exploring these issues, given the intriguing
and highly suggestive hints left by their contemporaries, or littered
throughout their prose? Of course it shouldn't.
At the risk of throwing your own words back at you, I believe sincerely that
is is deeply unhelpful to dismiss literary speculation or criticism on the
grounds that it is 'unhelpful'. Unhelpful to what? A Jamesian idolator might
view it as unhelpful, certainly; so would a Jamesian publisher; as would
surviving copyright holders. But would a true scholar or indeed a general
reader really view an alternative perspective as unhelpful, especially one
which seeks to explore previously unexplored issues?
TTFN,
Chris
Todd T
"nomis" <ghost...@oozingbrain.com> wrote in message
news:ghostbrain-3FF9C...@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
I am ( and I think Chris is) thinking of the reader's feeling. We just both
seem to feel uncomfortable expressing pleasure at certain unpleasant
material. Not that we don't appreciate it or are not moved by it - it may
be among my favorite work - just that the word "pleasure" seems too
pleasant for the effect of some pieces. I do think it's possible that the
connotations of the word have changed over time.
- Todd T.
nomis
"Todd T" <tttN...@megapipe.net> wrote:
> > Is it possible though you are mis-reading the statement? Rather than a
> > qualifier for "terror", couldn't it be a comment on the feeling of the
> > reader?
> >
> > It's a little difficult for me to differentiate between the two, though
> > I'll try. A "pleasant terror" need not mean that the terror itself is
> > pleasant, only that the feeling one gets from reading it is pleasant.
> > I've read "The Great God Pan" and though nothing pleasant happens in it,
> > the feelings of fear or awe or what have you have been pleasant ones for
> > me. Could a story invoke more than pleasantry? Sure, but I imagine those
> > are more of the "thriller" tales. Ghostly and weirdly fiction tends, to
> > this eye at least, to be a little more subdued.
> >
> > Pleasant isn't really a bad thing in my book.
> >
> > nomis
> >
> > http://www.oozingbrain.com
> >
> > home to _Withered Spirits: The Works of Terry Lamsley_
> > and _The Big F Webpage_ (diehards unite!)
>
> I am ( and I think Chris is) thinking of the reader's feeling. We just both
> seem to feel uncomfortable expressing pleasure at certain unpleasant
> material. Not that we don't appreciate it or are not moved by it - it may
> be among my favorite work - just that the word "pleasure" seems too
> pleasant for the effect of some pieces. I do think it's possible that the
> connotations of the word have changed over time.
>
> - Todd T.
Hmm...okay, I can get behind that explanation. I think it's arguable
though. The meaning of the term in this case is a little subjective, and
a good case can be made either way.
Do you think the term might have been more applicable when James used it?
Christopher Roden
'pleasant terror', which is seemingly being attributed to M. R. James.
He did not, in fact, use such a phrase, either in connection with his
own writings, or those of others. What he did say (see 'Some Remarks
on Ghost Stories', A PLEASING TERROR (Ashcroft, BC: Ash-Tree Press,
2001), p.475) followed a discussion of what George Borrow had
described as the 'best ghost story in the world', sourced in Lope de
Vega's EL PEREGRINO EN SU PATRIA. MRJ's comment was: 'Still, here you
have a story written with the sole object of inspiring a pleasing
terror in the reader; and as I think, that is the true aim of the
ghost story.'
Contextualizing the remark places the discussion in a somewhat
different light, does it not?
Christopher Roden
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:48:34 GMT, nomis <ghost...@oozingbrain.com>
wrote:
Chris Barker
Simon:
Terror cannot from a pedantic grammatical perspective realistically be
deemed 'pleasant' or 'pleasing'. Strictly speaking, you can't have a
pleasant toothache or a happy war atrocity, for example. But in a strange
way the term 'a pleasing terror' does possess resonance, and could obviously
apply to something which gives both 'pleasure' and 'terror'.
I would suggest that whilst the matter would inevitably come down to a
matter of personal subjective opinion that a degree of equilibrium between
'pleasure' and 'terror' needs to be maintained. If an imbalance occurs, the
scales would tilt over in favour of either word, rendering the other word -
and the conjunctive term 'pleasant terror' - wholly inappropriate.
My opinion would be that the term should not apply to M R James. It could
apply to others however e.g. Walter de la Mare. Unfortunately there are a
very large number of genuinely chilling / cruel / sadistic images in James'
work; to therefore accord it the status of 'being pleasant' or 'pleasing' is
inexcusable.
There is also an historical perspective to consider (as Todd spotted). A
story written a hundred years ago might have been deemed pleasant *then*.
But now - with the hindsight benefit of psychological analysis models,
sharper literary criticism and a wealth of biographical evidence - we can
reason that interpretations have changed significantly.
James can certainly ethuse a story with humour (albeit terribly dated
humour); he can also create an urbane, civilised atmosphere in which
afternoon tea is sipped whilst adhering to the correct social graces; and he
balks from allowing his characters to experience emotional crises. A stiff
academic upper lip is maintained at all times. Yet these genteel civilities
still do not empower his work with 'pleasantry', especially when one
reflects upon the characteristically Jamesian scenes of violence and cruelty
that complement this urbanity. Indeed, such social observances could equally
be called superior, affected, repressed or snobbish rather than pleasant.
No doubt Colonial domination was 'pleasant' for the Colonialists. From their
perspective, it might even have been deemed a 'pleasant domination'. But
when viewed from other perspectives the same situation would appear
completely different.
An unfortunate aspect about James's terrors is that they appear to be
guilt-free, at least on one lazy level. In beguiling us into believing that
his stories are 'pleasing' e.g. affected and civilised, he suggests that we
the reader should not be concerned about the horrors inflicted on the
victims or villains in his fiction; yet it is blindingly apparent that James
was personally haunted in dreams by the very same images of violence and
sexual repression that feature so symbolically in his prose. If James
fantasised subconsciously about ravishing young male adolescents then I for
one am not prepared to sit back and enjoy a guilt-free reading pleasure.
Fair enough if some people genuinely can't spot the vague allusions to
thinnly veiled sexual repression, but we cleverer few, capable of pooling
our thoughts and ideas, should know better.
A better aphorism for James' ghost stories might be 'Disturbing
Undercurrents' or 'A Very Repressed Terror'. 'A Pleasant Terror' is a
sinister misonomer which is factually outdated, inappropriate and
unoriginal.
GeoffreyW
wrote:
<Snip>
>The expression itself is ironic, I think. After all, how can
>experiencing terror or fear be pleasurable? L.P. Hartley understood
>the absurdity of it: "Even the most impassioned devotee of the ghost
>story would admit that the taste for it is slightly abnormal, a
>survival perhaps, from adolescence, a disease of deficiency suffered
>by those whose lives and imaginations do not react satisfactorily to
>normal experience and require an extra thrill."
I have never liked that quote from L.P. Hartley. Am I to feel like
Merricat Blackwood (in Shirley Jackson's We have always lived in the
castle) walking head down along the street while the rest of the town
stands in line on the other side staring at me? What language to use
to describe one who reads strange fiction; Abnormal, Disease,
Deficiency, Suffered. A survival from adolescence? Does this mean
that adolescents are naturally abnormal?
Surely all fiction that is worth reading, and I do read much more than
just ghostly or supernatural fiction anyway, is at least one step
removed from normal everyday experience and inspires the imagination
to look into aspects of the human condition that we may have
overlooked. If I was reading a book about normal everyday experience
then I would be reading about waking up in the morning, feeding the
cats, eating breakfast, blinking in the sunlight in the garden,
collecting the mail, taking out garbage, making love, laughing,
talking, etc etc. That would not really be very interesting in
itself.
I think that ghostly fiction is not that far removed from normal
experience anyway. When I go outside at night and stand in the middle
of these dark Mississippi woods that are still so strange to these
English eyes, and look up at the tall pines and see a full moon
glimmering through the branches and I hear the cries and chrrups of
the strange wildlife, then I feel a sense of what I feel when I read
ghost fiction. Ghost fiction is one step to the side of my normal
experience, in the same way that regular fiction is also one step to
the other side. It wouldnt be worth reading if it was not.
I feel that all fiction should inspire the imagination and that the
imagination that enjoys ghostly stories is not diseased but rather
open to more than the imagination that does not enjoy them. It is not
a deficiency, it is an extension. I would tend to agree with Aickman
when he says "I now do not merely believe but know that a quality of
the imagination is all that matters in life. I can proclaim it from
the heart."
Geoff
Todd T
"Christopher Roden" <ash...@ash-tree.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:n911rv85aa8j2b3nh...@4ax.com...
> It seems that the discussion here is centering around the phrase
> 'pleasant terror', which is seemingly being attributed to M. R. James.
>
> He did not, in fact, use such a phrase, either in connection with his
> own writings, or those of others. What he did say (see 'Some Remarks
> on Ghost Stories', A PLEASING TERROR (Ashcroft, BC: Ash-Tree Press,
> 2001), p.475) followed a discussion of what George Borrow had
> described as the 'best ghost story in the world', sourced in Lope de
> Vega's EL PEREGRINO EN SU PATRIA. MRJ's comment was: 'Still, here you
> have a story written with the sole object of inspiring a pleasing
> terror in the reader; and as I think, that is the true aim of the
> ghost story.'
>
> Contextualizing the remark places the discussion in a somewhat
> different light, does it not?
>
> Christopher Roden
>
>
Not really. If that's what MRJ considered to be the objective of a ghos
story, then we can assume it is what he aimed for in his own stories, and we
can assume that he hoped his stories could be described in that way.
- Todd T.
Barbara Roden
>
> "Christopher Roden" <ash...@ash-tree.bc.ca> wrote in message
> news:n911rv85aa8j2b3nh...@4ax.com...
> > It seems that the discussion here is centering around the phrase
> > 'pleasant terror', which is seemingly being attributed to M. R. James.
> >
> > He did not, in fact, use such a phrase, either in connection with his
> > own writings, or those of others. What he did say (see 'Some Remarks
> > on Ghost Stories', A PLEASING TERROR (Ashcroft, BC: Ash-Tree Press,
> > 2001), p.475) followed a discussion of what George Borrow had
> > described as the 'best ghost story in the world', sourced in Lope de
> > Vega's EL PEREGRINO EN SU PATRIA. MRJ's comment was: 'Still, here you
> > have a story written with the sole object of inspiring a pleasing
> > terror in the reader; and as I think, that is the true aim of the
> > ghost story.'
> >
> > Contextualizing the remark places the discussion in a somewhat
> > different light, does it not?
> Not really. If that's what MRJ considered to be the objective of a ghos
> story, then we can assume it is what he aimed for in his own stories, and
we
> can assume that he hoped his stories could be described in that way.
I think 'inspiring a pleasing terror in the reader' is a good description of
an effective ghostly tale; the terror is pleasing inasmuch as it's safe (you
don't really expect the nasties to get you, or anything unnerving to be
lurking under the pillow or outside the door, but you can safely experience
those feelings while the story is being read). It's the same sort of feeling
that urges people to go on the scariest, wildest rides at the fairground:
while you're on the ride you can be pleasantly terrified by the feelings
inspired, while at the same time knowing that at the end of the ride you'll
emerge unscathed (if queasy). Fairground haunted houses are another example:
those who go in to them (such as myself) hope to be frightened by the
experience, but know that we will experience a 'pleasing terror', in that
the ghosts aren't real and when we emerge into the sunlight the world be
normal and as it was. If you're not looking for that 'pleasing terror',
don't read the ghost story or go on the roller coaster or enter the haunted
house.
I doubt that James or anyone else is asking that we find the actual events
described in ghost stories as 'pleasant' (many ghost stories by their nature
describing horrific events which should not be replicated in real life;
don't try this at home, kids!), although I wouldn't presume to speak for
him; he's describing the sensation of reading the story as a whole. I don't
find a problem with this; I can read Wakefield's stories and be pleasantly
frightened by them, while not agreeing that all women are castrating bitches
who deserve to die horrible deaths, or viewing Wakefield as someone who had
urges to kill women in gruesome ways.
Barbara
nomis
"Chris Barker" <hauntedHIDEOUSDEA...@waitrose.com>
wrote:
> Simon:
>
> Terror cannot from a pedantic grammatical perspective realistically be
> deemed 'pleasant' or 'pleasing'. Strictly speaking, you can't have a
> pleasant toothache or a happy war atrocity, for example. But in a strange
> way the term 'a pleasing terror' does possess resonance, and could obviously
> apply to something which gives both 'pleasure' and 'terror'.
>
> I would suggest that whilst the matter would inevitably come down to a
> matter of personal subjective opinion that a degree of equilibrium between
> 'pleasure' and 'terror' needs to be maintained. If an imbalance occurs, the
> scales would tilt over in favour of either word, rendering the other word -
> and the conjunctive term 'pleasant terror' - wholly inappropriate.
>
> My opinion would be that the term should not apply to M R James. It could
> apply to others however e.g. Walter de la Mare. Unfortunately there are a
> very large number of genuinely chilling / cruel / sadistic images in James'
> work; to therefore accord it the status of 'being pleasant' or 'pleasing' is
> inexcusable.
>
Barbara pretty much summed up my arguement already, but to recap :)
I'm arguing that the term itself "pleasing (pleasant) terror" refers not
so much to terror invoked by the events of the story but from the
pleasing feeling we get while being "terrorized". Let me give an example
that may or may not be completely topical. Terry Lamsley's "Walking the
Dog" has a scene where someone is being hacked to pieces with a cleaver.
Now, I don't think the act of dismemberment is pleasant, but the thrill
I get from reading the story is pleasant. I enjoyed the story, and the
shock/horror/terror of that moment's revealation. It could be argued
that I found that feeling "pleasant". This is how I've read the phrase
since I became aware of it.
Again, I feel you're mis-reading the intent of the phrase. I can
understand the argument that the juxtaposition of the two term lend
weight one way or the other, not both, or that the meaning of the word
"pleasing/pleasant" is too "nice" (for lack of a better term), but I
think those arguements are really quite subjective.
Anyway, Barbara's post contains most of what I'm trying to say.
Chris Barker
Which indirectly ends my involvement in this discussion, I'm afraid. I
refuse to participate in a discussion with a Roden. Not only has her husband
levelled many vile and unsubstantiated personal allegations against me, but
he has set out to savage everything that I have published in the most ugly
and unprofessional of ways.
But I will say this: I find it gallingly hypocritical of the Rodens to enter
into an a.b.g.f. discussion about an issue I raised whilst elsewhere
preaching in privately-owned-small-press-dominated discussion groups that I
am (to quote Jim Rockhill) "a sonofabitch" not worth talking to.
It is pretty obvious that the Rodens have dispensed with their malleable
principles in order to defend their own Jamesian product - somebody has just
informed me that they are about to re-issue the M R James title "A Pleasing
Terror."
Kerching, kerching. Cover all bases, dominate all discussions. Kerching,
kerching.
Chris Barker
nomis
"Chris Barker" <hauntedHIDEOUSDEA...@waitrose.com>
wrote:
> Which indirectly ends my involvement in this discussion, I'm afraid. I
> refuse to participate in a discussion with a Roden. Not only has her husband
> levelled many vile and unsubstantiated personal allegations against me, but
> he has set out to savage everything that I have published in the most ugly
> and unprofessional of ways.
>
> But I will say this: I find it gallingly hypocritical of the Rodens to enter
> into an a.b.g.f. discussion about an issue I raised whilst elsewhere
> preaching in privately-owned-small-press-dominated discussion groups that I
> am (to quote Jim Rockhill) "a sonofabitch" not worth talking to.
>
> It is pretty obvious that the Rodens have dispensed with their malleable
> principles in order to defend their own Jamesian product - somebody has just
> informed me that they are about to re-issue the M R James title "A Pleasing
> Terror."
>
> Kerching, kerching. Cover all bases, dominate all discussions. Kerching,
> kerching.
>
> Chris Barker
Sure, sure...as soon as I get to join a discussion everyone leaves. I'm
feeling like Typhoid Simon here.
Why not just ignore the post you take offense to and respond strictly to
mine? Can all the separate parties not share the newsgroup?
Oh well, maybe I can goad Todd into arguing with me...TODD!! YOU'RE
WRONG! YOU HEAR ME?! WWRONG WRONG WRONG!!
I can always hope...
Chris Barker
Nothing personal. You made (make) some very good points.
But you better leave Todd alone or else!
Chris
"nomis" <ghost...@oozingbrain.com> wrote in message
news:ghostbrain-3C28B...@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
nomis
"Chris Barker" <hauntedHIDEOUSDEA...@waitrose.com>
wrote:
> But you better leave Todd alone or else!
>
> Chris
But, I think I can take him.
(he said, running for cover...)
Chris Ward
Just when I was thinking how pleasant it was to follow a discussion in
which folks from both sides of the hundred-flames-war were
participating without the old sores being opened up, too.
I thought things were progressing relatively well, all things
considered.
And then Todd and Nomis had to go and spoil it all.
What ? Why, who did you think I meant ? ;-)
- Chris
Todd T
"GeoffreyW" <pennyroy...@bellsouth.net.INVALID> wrote in message
news:1672rvgrmedan3l4j...@4ax.com...
Very well put. If the bone in us that resonates to a ghost story is a
diseased one, then it's fairly often diseased one way or another through a
large percentage of the population.
- Todd T.
Todd T
> In article <ldOdnZJQnfc...@brightview.com>,
> "Chris Barker" <hauntedHIDEOUSDEA...@waitrose.com>
> wrote:
>
> > But you better leave Todd alone or else!
> >
> > Chris
>
> But, I think I can take him.
>
> (he said, running for cover...)
>
> nomis
>
Oh I'm sure you can take me, intellectually and other ways. But I'm not
sure we're really at odds. My point is that I do get something you could
call pleasure out of reading effective unpleasant material. I love MRJ and
many others whose stories are not light diversions; what I struggle with is
just how to express this to people in less than a paragraph, without
sometimes giving the impression that I have a nasty core myself. Everyone
here on both sides of the argument will know immediately what I mean when I
say I enjoyed a particularly dark story. It's the rest of the world that
may not. I'm not really focusing strictly on the "pleasing terror" phrase,
I just meant to use it as a jumping off point for my own issue.
- Todd T.
nomis
"Todd T" <tttN...@megapipe.net> wrote:
I know Todd; I'm just horsing around. Assuming I read you're previous
response correctly, I was disagreeing more with what Chris was saying
than you.
That said, I don't see why it should be so hard to describe why you
enjoy reading dark fiction. Well, let me rephrase that: I know WHY you
feel that way, I don't know why you HAVE to feel that way. I don't know
why people who aren't fans have trouble understanding the appeal of a
horror story, yet have no problem understanding why someone might enjoy
some of the James Bond films, with their unreal antics and volume of
often horrific killings. Like many fans of a maligned genre, we are made
to feel guilty when we should feel no such thing.
I feel "a pleasing terror" in reading many ghost stories, and I'm not
uncomfortable admiting it...here at least. In the real world, my
interest in ghost and horror stories turns into something about
"turn-of-the centuary and Edwardian supernatural fiction".
Randy Money
[...]
> I feel "a pleasing terror" in reading many ghost stories, and I'm not
> uncomfortable admiting it...here at least. In the real world, my
> interest in ghost and horror stories turns into something about
> "turn-of-the centuary and Edwardian supernatural fiction".
>
> nomis
I haven't followed this discussion as closely as I should before barging
in, but ... I also doubt James, a highly educated man, did not realize
the tug-of-war within that phrase. I expect, from the sense of humor
displayed in some of his writings, that MRJ rather enjoyed the truth
behind that phrase -- we do get a certain kind of pleasure from being
scared; just ask any child meandering through a 'haunted house' -- as
well as the conflict between our emotions and our perception of our
emotions.
Randy M.
Rick Kennett
> > > throat-slittings of sexually active idiot girls
> >
> > Which James ghost story are you refering to here, Chris?
> >
> > Rick
>
> Hi Rick:
>
> Martin's Close. The one in which Ann Clark - a young female simpleton - is
> murdered by the evil squire after having he seduces her.
I'd not really read "Martin's Close" before other than perhaps
skimming it; probably the 17th century (?) dialect of the court
transcriptions put me off. But I have read it now. Ann Clark was
young, was a simpleton and did have her throat slit, yes. But she was
not sexually active nor was she really seduced by the evil squire.
(OK, she may have thought a lot more of him that he did of her, but
that was about as far as it went.) Her murder was the result of his
cruel joke against her backfiring and leaving him seeing Ann as the
cause of his reversals. I read something similar to "Martins's Close"
in a comic in the 60s. It appears to be a traditional story of an
innocent country girl, a wicked squire, and murder, a return, the
culprit found out and justice done. Probably wasn't original with
James. Merely his version.
Rick