According to Rick McCollum's long review and essay reprinted in Sword & Sorcery #13 (2017), to be classified as a work of weird fiction, 3 elements must be present. "The Sense of Ecstasy" is a thematically variable, emotional element, often involving "self-realization" through "forbidden knowledge or repressed insights" (47-48). Second is "The Establishment of Awe", which is largely "a matter of control" (48), or the loss thereof, as a character or the reader is confronted by greater "forces, races, or events". And finally, unless we can credibly posit a 4th essential element, there is "The Lifting of the Veil" (49), which should require no explanation at all to long-term ED readers. I concur with this definition. I think the short stories that present these elements in the most forceful and artistically accomplished way are Poe's "Ligeia" and Bierce's "The Death of Halpin Frayser", although Machen's "The White People" garnered the most mentions when I broached the question some time ago. Comments?

jkh

I am not familiar with the article you mention, but the classification you describe seems a little restrictive to me. For example, where is the sense of ecstasy in the fiction of Robert Aickman?

Speaking for myself only, I have always interpreted the “weird” in “weird fiction” to mean: 1) unclassifiable (as in: “David Lynch makes weird movies!”) and 2) uncanny (unheimlich). Giving in to my dictionary fetish yields the following definition of “uncanny” in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary:

Quote:

uncanny (SOED)
Seemingly supernatural; uncomfortably strange or unfamiliar, weird; of an unsettling accuracy, intensity, etc.

In a nutshell: if a piece of fiction is impossible to pin down genre-wise and it has an unsettling effect on me, I’m inclined to call it weird fiction.

Avoosl Wuthoqquan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am not familiar with the article you mention,
> but the classification you describe seems a little
> restrictive to me. For example, where is the sense
> of ecstasy in the fiction of Robert Aickman?
>
> Speaking for myself only, I have always
> interpreted the “weird” in “weird fiction”
> to mean: 1) unclassifiable (as in: “David Lynch
> makes weird movies!”) and 2) uncanny
> (unheimlich). Giving in to my dictionary fetish
> yields the following definition of “uncanny”
> in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary:
>
>
> Seemingly supernatural; uncomfortably strange or
> unfamiliar, weird; of an unsettling accuracy,
> intensity, etc.
>
>
> In a nutshell: if a piece of fiction is impossible
> to pin down genre-wise and it has an unsettling
> effect on me, I’m inclined to call it weird
> fiction.

Interesting points.

As to the "dictionary fetish", I'm inclined to favor it *for sake of precision of intent*. No kidding; I've dealt with so many people online who use common terms loosely, and I take the word as close to its dictionary definition(s) as I can--not to be an anal retentive about the word's "true" meaning, but simply because I cannot know all connotations the interlocutor has (basically, "baggage"), and in absence of this "inside knowledge", I have to go with the recognized meaning. This can lead to heated exchanges that could easily have been avoided.

E.g., "racism" is one such word that has gotten me into a ton of trouble. Taking the established dictionary definition and applying it as objectively as I can leads me to see it as being pretty universal, whereas some interlocutors want to exclude certain groups from the criteria found in the dictionary definition.

So now I just stay away from such discussions, for the most part. Life's too short...

So far as "unsettling" as an attribute of weird fiction, I also agree, and would add that the unsettling aspect can be very transitory--just for the amount of time I'm reading it and maybe a little beyond. It is not necessary to be deeply or lastingly unsettling, as with the overall reality of McCarthy's The Road, which I had to put down for a while, it was that unsettling to me. Not so much the events described, but more along the lines of how does a parent in a desperate situation attempt to assure a child's survival, even if it appears to be futile.

Difficult stuff, if you are a parent.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
---------------------------------------------------
> As to the "dictionary fetish", I'm inclined to
> favor it *for sake of precision of intent*.

That’s good enough for me (as if you’d need -- or even desire -- my approval… :P ).

As a linguist and translator I am convinced that dictionaries should be descriptive, not prescriptive, but (and this is the first and last political comment I will ever make on this site) the way ‘racism’ (a word referring to a despicable ideology) has come to mean ‘xenophobia’ (a human foible all of us are ‘guilty’ of) has forever castrated what used to be the political left (i.e. a movement looking after people who have to work for a living (that would be you and me), instead of being obsessed with who goes to what bathroom) is lamentable. And I say this as an almost card-carrying socialist as well as a self-employed, gay, trans-friendly, home-owning European, whose public health insurance covered the curing of his cancer in 2019.

But I will leave it at that. This site is about CAS and his work, and should be a haven from ideological clashes.

> the
> unsettling aspect can be very transitory--just for
> the amount of time I'm reading it and maybe a
> little beyond. It is not necessary to be deeply or
> lastingly unsettling

I agree with you once again, amigo. Some stories haunt you forever, while some are like that super-sour or spicy candy your friends talked you into trying when you were nine[1]. Who here remembers Fireball candy? Ay, chihuahua!

[1] Actually, for me it was a classmate who insisted that while we sucked on Dracula-brand lollipops, “a film of Dracula would appear on the wall”. What a disappointment that was…



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11 Jul 21 | 01:29PM by Avoosl Wuthoqquan.

Avoosl Wuthoqquan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am not familiar with the article you mention,
> but the classification you describe seems a little
> restrictive to me. For example, where is the sense
> of ecstasy in the fiction of Robert Aickman?
>

I haven't read a whole lot by Aickman, yet, but I found some sense ecstasy or ecstatic beauty (from the writer's point of view, not for the portrayed character) in "The Wine-Dark Sea" and "The Swords", at least.

But, I don't see why a "sense of ecstasy", or "self-realization and insights", should be a requirement for weird fiction, at least not for the portrayed character; unless that also entails self-realization of ones own madness or inability to comprehend the weirdness that is witnessed. Although, for the reader it may be desirable.


Kipling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> there is "The Lifting of the Veil" (49), which should require no explanation at all to long-term ED readers.
>

I mistook that for "The Render of the Veils", which anyhow is a very fine little weird story by Ramsey Campbell, similar to Lovecraft's "From Beyond".


H. P. Lovecraft's and C. A. Smith's approach to the "anatomy of the weird" were a little different from each other.

Lovecraft's view was very much that weird and cosmic horror is something we experience when we leave the face of the Earth and move out into Space, or if something from Space comes to Earth and confronts us. (The physical laws which our senses are adapted to, through Evolution, become disrupted or replaced with different conditions. There is the weird.).

Smith included exotic beauty in the sense of the weird. In that way he leaned more toward being a fantasist than Lovecraft, while Lovecraft tended more toward science fiction.

Avoosl Wuthoqquan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -
> > As to the "dictionary fetish", I'm inclined to
> > favor it *for sake of precision of intent*.
>
> That’s good enough for me (as if you’d need --
> or even desire -- my approval… :P ).
>
> As a linguist and translator I am convinced that
> dictionaries should be descriptive, not
> prescriptive, but (and this is the first and last
> political comment I will ever make on this site)
> the way ‘racism’ (a word referring to a
> despicable ideology) has come to mean
> ‘xenophobia’ (a human foible all of us are
> ‘guilty’ of) has forever castrated what used
> to be the political left (i.e. a movement looking
> after people who have to work for a living (that
> would be you and me), instead of being obsessed
> with who goes to what bathroom) is lamentable. And
> I say this as an almost card-carrying socialist as
> well as a self-employed, gay, trans-friendly,
> home-owning European, whose public health
> insurance covered the curing of his cancer in
> 2019.

Gosh, Avoosl, I would really like to discuss these topics with you, the reasons being that you are rational and well-considered, and a thoroughly enjoyable correspondent. Everything I look for in a interlocutor to discuss social/topical issues.

I'm not looking to be right; I am looking to "get it right", and by this I mean my default worldview--i.e., how things *work* and why...

A few preview: the nature of socialism

As a college student I considered communism and socialism, both of which come in various flavors, but all of which seem to me to share the happy ideal of a society of individuals that care enough about all members of the society to voluntarily sacrifice some of the fruits of their own personal labor.

Later, when I was older but just as dumb, I reversed polarities and proclaimed that socialism could not work, ever, and that a free-market approach with little to no external (governmental) regulation.

But gradual realizations of what open free-market actually means/implies, and especially the 2008 financial meltdown and my subsequent personal research into the mechanisms of the collapse, led me to rethink the whole question about economic systems, and I've come up with some interesting personal conclusions that need further testing.

E.g., successful, stable socialism *can* and does exist, but it is limited in application by scope and ethnic (and maybe national) identity. This came to me like a thunderclap, at first, when I had to recognize that virtually every American Indian tribe was of an informal socialistic organization. This led me to unravel that it had evolved from the natural socialism practiced within the family structure, and extended (also naturally) to the clan and maybe tribal levels.

But beyond that scope it tends to break, because to have a stable socialist system it would need to be either voluntary and self-motivated, or alternatively massively and forcibly coerced by an external authority--which I would argue is probably not really stable and is subject to civil unrest.

Now, if accurate, why is this?

It's simply because to have voluntary socialism--probably the only stable form of socialism--there has to be bilateral trust between those who have surplus resources (net contributor) to be shared by those who have insufficient resources (net recipient). If the net contributor does not trust that the net recipient actually has attempted to honestly attain self-reliance, and is basically sand-bagging to a greater or lesser degree, they'll attempt to withhold contributions. They will tend to disrespect the net recipients as a class, for appearing to fail to have any intention of contributing, ever.

Similarly, if the net recipient does not trust that the net contributors are contributing fairly (they are somehow gaming the system), they will resent the net contributors as a class. They will also suspect that they are the object of scorn and disrespect, which is probably accurate to a varying degree.

To be the knowing recipient of forced collectivist surpluses is demeaning, as well, leading to another type of resentment.

However, within the scope of a family/clan/tribe (maybe), the physical proximity of the contributors to the recipient reassures the contributors that indeed, the recipient really does need help, and the recipients can see that the resources shared by the contributors really do reduce the assets of the contributor. Literally, they *are( making a personal sacrifice.

Once the contributors no longer have visibility of the recipients, and vice-versa, this breaks down into lasting mistrust.

And this mistrust, in turn, can be played masterfully by demagogues--which routinely, and increasingly happens here in the US.

This is amplified by one degree of magnitude if the contributor/recipient are of different races/ethnicities/nationalities. Religions are a factor, but often less so.

So a large muiti-ethnic/multiracial society such as the US would have to use official coercion to apply socialistic programs, whereas it would be easier in a smaller, more racially/ethnically homogeneous society.

In fact, socialism's true and natural application may be natural and voluntary associations based on shared values, such as family/blood groups, or religious affiliations.

That's where I am now, anyway. All defaults can change, with supported counter-examples.

>
> But I will leave it at that. This site is about
> CAS and his work, and should be a haven from
> ideological clashes.
>
> > the
> > unsettling aspect can be very transitory--just
> for
> > the amount of time I'm reading it and maybe a
> > little beyond. It is not necessary to be deeply
> or
> > lastingly unsettling
> rol
> I agree with you once again, amigo. Some stories
> haunt you forever, while some are like that
> super-sour or spicy candy your friends talked you
> into trying when you were nine[1]. Who here
> remembers Fireball candy? Ay, chihuahua!
>
> [1] Actually, for me it was a classmate who
> insisted that while we sucked on Dracula-brand
> lollipops, “a film of Dracula would appear on
> the wall”. What a disappointment that was…

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11 Jul 21 | 02:59PM by Sawfish.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Avoosl Wuthoqquan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I am not familiar with the article you mention,
> > but the classification you describe seems a
> little
> > restrictive to me. For example, where is the
> sense
> > of ecstasy in the fiction of Robert Aickman?
> >
>
> I haven't read a whole lot by Aickman, yet, but I
> found some sense ecstasy or ecstatic beauty (from
> the writer's point of view, not for the portrayed
> character) in "The Wine-Dark Sea" and "The
> Swords", at least.
>
> But, I don't see why a "sense of ecstasy", or
> "self-realization and insights", should be a
> requirement for weird fiction, at least not for
> the portrayed character; unless that also entails
> self-realization of ones own madness or inability
> to comprehend the weirdness that is witnessed.
> Although, for the reader it may be desirable.
>
>
> Kipling Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > there is "The Lifting of the Veil" (49), which
> should require no explanation at all to long-term
> ED readers.
> >
>
> I mistook that for "The Render of the Veils",
> which anyhow is a very fine little weird story by
> Ramsey Campbell, similar to Lovecraft's "From
> Beyond".
>
>
> H. P. Lovecraft's and C. A. Smith's approach to
> the "anatomy of the weird" were a little different
> from each other.
>
> Lovecraft's view was very much that weird and
> cosmic horror is something we experience when we
> leave the face of the Earth and move out into
> Space, or if something from Space comes to Earth
> and confronts us. (The physical laws which our
> senses are adapted to, through Evolution, become
> disrupted or replaced with different conditions.
> There is the weird.).
>
> Smith included exotic beauty in the sense of the
> weird. In that way he leaned more toward being a
> fantasist than Lovecraft, while Lovecraft tended
> more toward science fiction.

Good stuff.

It seems to me that CAS qwas something of a sensualist, as well, where HPL was notg.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

McCollum notes "the beauty of opulence" as a source of Ecstasy in Smith, "an intellectual, (as opposed to structural), poetic of the rhythm of the text and a hedonism of descriptive excess. The ties to the ideals of fine arts through the modes of Symbolism and Decadence are at their strongest within the writing of Smith" (48). Characters in Aickmann and Machen stories have their emotional/spiritual equalibrium upset; in Robert E. Howard it is more of a catharsis, in M.R. James the frisson of "supernatural reprisal", and so on.

Kipling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> McCollum notes "the beauty of opulence" as a
> source of Ecstasy in Smith, "an intellectual, (as
> opposed to structural), poetic of the rhythm of
> the text and a hedonism of descriptive excess. The
> ties to the ideals of fine arts through the modes
> of Symbolism and Decadence are at their strongest
> within the writing of Smith" (48). Characters in
> Aickmann and Machen stories have their
> emotional/spiritual equalibrium upset; in Robert
> E. Howard it is more of a catharsis, in M.R. James
> the frisson of "supernatural reprisal", and so on.

Thanks, Kipling.

Considering the McCollum points will add a lot to how I see CAS. Opulence and material excess, especially in building materials, is striking.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kipling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> McCollum notes "the beauty of opulence" as a
> source of Ecstasy in Smith, "an intellectual, (as
> opposed to structural), poetic of the rhythm of
> the text and a hedonism of descriptive excess. The
> ties to the ideals of fine arts through the modes
> of Symbolism and Decadence are at their strongest
> within the writing of Smith" (48).

And being a practitioner of Fine Art cannot be denied him, in spite of the un-imaginary critique elite labeling and dismissing him as "pulp".