Would one count "The Merry Men" as one of Stevenson's weird tales? Or is a supposed "rational explanation" just a little too evident?

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Would one count "The Merry Men" as one of
> Stevenson's weird tales? Or is a supposed
> "rational explanation" just a little too evident?


I'd say: after "The Body-Snatcher," let's read it and see what we think! How about in a few days?

Platypus Wrote:

> This is a story where, for me, the horror of the
> body-snatchers themselves exceeds the horror of
> the ghostly climax.

It does work that way, doesn't it? In many ghostly stories, such as many of M. R. James's, you get the incremental disclosure of the haunter, building to the climactic moment of terror or horror. But that's not what Stevenson does. Instead you get the incremental revelation of the wickedness of the body-snatchers -- plural; the title doesn't prepare you for the story's revelation of more than one.

That raises the question: If there is a particular body-snatcher whom we're supposed to be occupied with, who is it? Wouldn't it be the drinker Fettes, who has been the boon companion of a little tavern group who did not suspect his criminal past? Or would it be Macfarlane, who seems even more deeply steeped in villainy?

And what do we make of the shocker ending?

I should say — yes, there’s the shocker ending. It’s supernatural, but there was no James-style incremental buildup to that. We have the gradual exposure of the wickedness of the two body snatchers, but the shocker is, so to speak, out of the blue, or seems to be. Just what did happen?

There being no evidence, as far as I know, to indicate that we are to see the story's narrator as deceptive or deceived, we are to take it that two things are certain:

1.The body that rode with Macfarlane and Fettes from the cemetery until they jumped from the horse-drawn gig and the gig headed towards Edinburgh was not the body of the old woman that they believed they had exhumed, but the dissected and decayed body of Gray, whom Macfarlane had murdered. Once it had been uncovered, both men saw this corpse and had no doubt whose it was.

2.Fettes has continued to see "it" and, when he demands to know if Macfarlane does also, the implication of his reaction is that he does.

There seem to be three possibilities:

1.They were mistaken: they had dug up Gray's body in the darkness, not that of the woman. Somehow the cut-up male corpse had come to be in the woman's grave. Against this idea there are at least two considerations: how did the dismembered body come to seem to be that of an intact corpse when they dug it up? and Fettes is sure that "'It was a woman when we put her in'" the sack.

2.The corpse of Gray became reassembled and animated and, somehow, switched the woman's body for his own after her body had been placed in the sack. There seems to be no evidence to support the idea of an animated corpse busy about removing one body and then getting into the sack.

3."He peered at the bundle, and it seemed somehow larger than at first. All over the country-side, and from every degree of distance, the farm dogs accompanied their passage with tragic ululations; and it grew and grew upon his mind that some unnatural miracle had been accomplished, that some nameless change had befallen the dead body, and that it was in fear of their unholy burden that the dogs were howling."


Thoughts?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10 Aug 21 | 10:17AM by Dale Nelson.

I'd offer a somewhat different interpretation, and this is probably informed by me being a product of post-modernism.

Comments below:



Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There being no evidence, as far as I know, to
> indicate that we are to see the story's narrator
> as deceptive or deceived,

But we must never forget that everything he knows was told to him by Fettes. The narrator "wormed" it out of him, implying that his other two companions that night perhaps also tried, with varying degrees of success.

So really, the part of the narrative concerning body snatching comes solely from Fettes' recounting of the tale, and there are many hints that he's far from a reliable POV.


> we are to take it that
> two things are certain:
>
> 1.The body that rode with Macfarlane and Fettes
> from the cemetery until they jumped from the
> horse-drawn gig and the gig headed towards
> Edinburgh was not the body of the old woman that
> they believed they had exhumed, but the dissected
> and decayed body of Gray, whom Macfarlane had
> murdered. Once it had been uncovered, both men
> saw this corpse and had no doubt whose it was.

According to Fettes.

>
> 2.Fettes has continued to see "it" and, when he
> demands to know if Macfarlane does also, the
> implication of his reaction is that he does.

According to Fettes.

>
> There seem to be three possibilities:
>
> 1.They were mistaken: they had dug up Gray's body
> in the darkness, not that of the woman. Somehow
> the cut-up male corpse had come to be in the
> woman's grave. Against this idea there are at
> least two considerations: how did the dismembered
> body come to seem to be that of an intact corpse
> when they dug it up? and Fettes is sure that "'It
> was a woman when we put her in'" the sack.
>
> 2.The corpse of Gray became reassembled and
> animated and, somehow, switched the woman's body
> for his own after her body had been placed in the
> sack. There seems to be no evidence to support
> the idea of an animated corpse busy about removing
> one body and then getting into the sack.
>
> 3."He peered at the bundle, and it seemed somehow
> larger than at first. All over the country-side,
> and from every degree of distance, the farm dogs
> accompanied their passage with tragic ululations;
> and it grew and grew upon his mind that some
> unnatural miracle had been accomplished, that some
> nameless change had befallen the dead body, and
> that it was in fear of their unholy burden that
> the dogs were howling."
>
>
> Thoughts?

My post-modern self sees Fettes portrayed as a run-down drunk who never worked because he was "a man of some property, since he lived in idleness".

He's supposedly educated, is nicknamed the Doctor, and he does indeed sometimes treat fractures, etc.

OK, where did he get his "property"?

From what the narrator tells us that Fettes told him, he supplied bodies to an anatomy teacher, K. MacFarlane also is in on this supply chain. This paid very well, it seemed.

Now MacFarlane knew all along that many of the bodies were murder victims, and he rationalized it in a very modern way--in fact, I was shocked to hear MacFarlane's "lions/lambs" dichotomy because it sounds a lot like how I have come to think, and said as much with my "in the stands or in the area" conceit...

But that's neither here nor there... ;^)

Fettes, however, is deeply horrified when he can no longer kid himself. Jane Galbraith is one of the bodies, and later Gray is, also.

He has to work hard to come around to convincing himself that continuing is OK, and this is driven not only by the money, but also there are two threats, one over and one veiled.

MacFarlane points out that they can't very well implicate anyone since they've been the conduit for illicit bodies, and the veiled threat is "you saw what happened to Gray; think about what *could* happen to *you*...".

I suggest that it's possible that Fettes' conscience created the entire thing, and that he likely continued supplying with MacFarlane until MacFarlane became respectable, at which time of course MacFarlane would become nervous and anxious if he saw Fettes, who was by then an unreliable drunk, and who was his sole connection with his days as a body snatcher. You'll note, too, that MacFarlane attempts to buy off Fettes when he meets him--offers money.

The sole objective confirming fact that the changed corpse in the carriage was Gray is the narrator telling us that MacFarlane, who was already on the way out in a hurry, became even more agitated when Fettes said "Have you seen it again?"

It's one way of seeing this story, anyway.

--Sawfish

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

So we are to take it, Sawfish, that the narrator has been deceived by a drunkard suffering from guilty hallucinations?

A concern I'd have about your hypothesis is that I don't see Stevenson providing clues to direct our attention to the narrator as a man susceptible to being deceived (whether Fettes is consciously trying to deceive him or not).

The narrator says he wormed out the story. It's interesting that he doesn't say he wormed it out of Fettes, which your hypothesis assumes. Granted, Stevenson has given us no information about who else might have been the narrator's sources, and for the climactic events it seems that only Macfarlane or Fettes or both could be the source(s). I think Stevenson might have been well advised to be clearer about this. It seems to me that he might not have really thought this detail through and wants to get right into the story of the two body snatchers.

But as to your main thesis, that Fettes imagined the whole thing or at least the gruesome events of the final section, I'd say that an author would need to give us more clues to suggest that it all is the product of a diseased mind; that the horror is the revelation that an intimate of the little group has been a body-snatcher and is now a lunatic.

But then I believe there are apparitions in The Turn of the Screw and that the governess is not a madwoman who hallucinated all the dreadful moments.

It seems to me that we are to take it that Fettes is not insane and that his brain is not pickled in alcohol, but rather than his heavy drinking etc. are indications of the burden of the horrible knowledge that he can't deny -- he knows these things happened -- but that he can't bear to think about.

Has anyone besides me seen this film?

[en.wikipedia.org])

--Sawfish

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

Here's something I'm trying to recall and evaluate...

While there is no direct reference, or even strong, clear implication, do you think that Gray's power over MacFarlane is a) Gray is a sometime supplier of corpses to MacFarlane, like the two Irish "ghouls"; b) is not a supplier, but knows how MacFarlane obtains some of the corpses, and is using it as a point of blackmail; or c) both?

--Sawfish

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

About Gray: I'd have to take another look at the story; off the top, it doesn't seem to me that the difference would make a difference as regards my interpretation of the main lines of the story, which are (1) the revelation of the villainy of Fettes and Macfarlane and (2) the shocker ending.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So we are to take it, Sawfish, that the narrator
> has been deceived by a drunkard suffering from
> guilty hallucinations?

That's a possible way to see the narration,

An important point and the reason I mention "my post-modern self": at the time the story was written, was unreliable POV an accepted form of narration, as it has become today? I'm thinking maybe not--that most narration by a supposedly unbiased observer was meant to be taken at face value.

But so far as unreliable narrator, The Tell-Tale heart seems to have an unreliable narrator, and The Tin Drum is one long delusion.

But Body Snatcher is a story related to us by a drinking buddy of the central character, and my point is that the actual narrative POV is merely a sort of pass-thru and it seems as though much of it would have necessarily been from Fettes, since MacFarlane had no reason to supply this damaging information--in fact, everything in the story indicates that he wanted it to remain hidden.

Also, we can note that the story contains much directly quoted dialog. This is awkward to have in a second-hand narration, since not having been present to hear the exact, quoted exchanges, he would have had to have carefully written them down as a first-hand observer (Fettes, MacFarlane) told the story, because if not, it means the quoted sections are to some degree fabricated.

A really fastidious reader might be led to think that the narrator is making up the significant parts of the story--and maybe entirely so.

Let's see: the narrator says that after they witnessed the strange behavior of MacFarlane leaving, "Each man, before we parted, had his theory he was bound to prove", and that they had nothing better to do than to "track out the past of our condemned companion". Naturally, the narrator likes his own version best, and he hints that this all happened some time ago, since he claims that there is perhaps no man still alive who could tell the story, which implies that both Fettes and MacFarlane are dead.

So it's a pretty shaky story for a 21st C reader, which is why I wonder if it's best to simply consider that Stevenson was simply writing a commercial tale that used standard narrative conventions of the era--that we're not suppose to think too much about the story, but simply sit there and have shivers.



>
> A concern I'd have about your hypothesis is that I
> don't see Stevenson providing clues to direct our
> attention to the narrator as a man susceptible to
> being deceived (whether Fettes is consciously
> trying to deceive him or not).

Other than sitting around and drinking with the same three guys "every night of the year", with at least one of the four drinking himself blotto every night.

The picture one could mentally draw, if one thought too hard about it, is a nightly meeting of sots. Every night...

>
> The narrator says he wormed out the story. It's
> interesting that he doesn't say he wormed it out
> of Fettes, which your hypothesis assumes.

Yes. There are only two known possible sources: Fettes and MacFafrlane. The narrator could conceivably gone around and interviewed people who knew Jane, or Gary, or ???, but this seems improbable for a guy who drinks every night at least long enough to ascertain that Fettes has five rums each evening. My guess is that the narrator is also drinking at least a part that time, as well.

The more I think about it, the more it seems to be merely use of the narrative conventions of the era. We (me) shouldn't think too much about these minor details, just pay for the story and read it.

> Granted, Stevenson has given us no information
> about who else might have been the narrator's
> sources, and for the climactic events it seems
> that only Macfarlane or Fettes or both could be
> the source(s). I think Stevenson might have been
> well advised to be clearer about this.

It does seem weak and loose, doesn't it?

> It seems
> to me that he might not have really thought this
> detail through and wants to get right into the
> story of the two body snatchers.

For commercial reasons, no doubt.

>
> But as to your main thesis, that Fettes imagined
> the whole thing or at least the gruesome events of
> the final section, I'd say that an author would
> need to give us more clues to suggest that it all
> is the product of a diseased mind; that the horror
> is the revelation that an intimate of the little
> group has been a body-snatcher and is now a
> lunatic.

No, he wouldn't have to be that extreme. Fettes describes himself (or his apearance, anyway) as being the product of rum and sin.

He's very, very guilt-ridden. Remember how he felt at seeing Jane, with whom he knew well enough to have at least "jested with the day before".

Then, later with Gray, it's not only a sort of guilt at havibg conversed at length with him, but also the implicit threat that it could just as easily be him on the table.

And to com;icatge it still further, he got himself to accept money to forget his qualms, and went so far as to court MacFarlane's approval.

For me, a modern reader, it would not be hard to consider that Fettes is under significant self-condemnation. This was of course not shared by MacFarlane overtly, so far as we can tell.

>
> But then I believe there are apparitions in The
> Turn of the Screw and that the governess is not a
> madwoman who hallucinated all the dreadful
> moments.

Could never get myself to finish it.

>
> It seems to me that we are to take it that Fettes
> is not insane and that his brain is not pickled in
> alcohol, but rather than his heavy drinking etc.
> are indications of the burden of the horrible
> knowledge that he can't deny

To me, this is principally the knowledge that he colluded in murder for profit that included even friends and acquaintances.

> -- he knows these
> things happened -- but that he can't bear to think
> about.

Maybe.

--Sawfish

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

Sawfish, I suspect you are right when you say

----The more I think about it, the more it seems to be merely use of the narrative conventions of the era. We (me) shouldn't think too much about these minor details, just pay for the story and read it.----

Whether Stevenson assumed that the reader would go along with the story basically at face value even though he was aware of some weaknesses of logic, or wasn't fully aware of those weaknesses himself, I think Stevenson means this story to be a supernatural shocker. Author intention can't always be inferred and it can be a distraction from what was actually written. But I think a non-supernatural reading of the story requires strong evidence in the story to point to that, especially since it was published prior to the overt experimentalism of modernist writing.

If so, then we would revert to the 2nd or 3rd possibilities in my 10:59 am posting, right?

The text seems to support the third idea, that an "unnatural miracle" occurred. It may well be that the story leaves it at that and doesn't invite consideration of the question of who or what was the agent that worked this miracle. Thus the story would be a gruesome yarn that gradually reveals the villainy of Fettes and Macfarlane, the one an obvious wretch, the other a respected physician -- but we come to realize that, despite society's differing assessments, they are equally bad, or indeed that the more respected one of the two is the worse man. The story has an unexpected horror-climax for which the reader wasn't prepared in the manner of M. R. James, in whose stories the uncanny manifestations typically occur incrementally. Rather, in the light of the shocker ending we now understand retrospectively why Fettes gets blotto, with companions, every night and why Macfarlane was so alarmed to see his former partner, and why Fettes demands to know if he sees "it" too (the apparition of the murdered, dissected, and dismembered Gray).

But in my reading of the story this time -- I suppose I'd read it a couple of times before -- I wondered if there's a little more going on than this. Stevenson seems to emphasize Fettes' disdain for religion, what with his remarks such as the one about knowing for sure now that there is no God. Yet a "miracle" occurred.

This brought to my mind the passage in the Gospel according to St. Luke, Chapter 16. The rich man died and descended to perdition, while Lazarus is safely with Father Abraham. The rich man tells Abraham to send Lazarus to the rich man's five brothers, to warn them....

----28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. 29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.----

Abraham tells the damned rich man that even if Lazarus came from the dead to warn the brothers, they would not be convinced and repent, if they don't already believe on account of the Scriptures. The miracle wouldn't do them any good.

In the Stevenson story, Fettes was not moved to repentance -- neither by his guilt, nor even by the "miracle" that he saw with his own eyes, of someone -- or something that came from the dead. The miracle doesn't do him any good.

I doubt that Stevenson was writing a riff on Luke 16. So far as I know he was not a Christian believer; but he'd been raised as a Christian and he probably was familiar with the Luke passage. It's possible that it influenced him without his realizing it. Or perhaps after all he was consciously playing with the passage. That's not the point. The point is that the details of the story as we have it seem (to me) to invite a reading like this. This certainly doesn't make the story a Christian parable, and I certainly wasn't thinking of it as anything but a dimly-remembered horror story when I suggested we read it.

But anyway is that a plausible reading? A "miracle" did occur, but it did neither man any spiritual good. Rather, they are haunted by their guilt and, probably, both are literally haunted by the ghastly remains of Gray.

A lot of apparitions in stories are eerie, but Stevenson's bogey is a particularly horrid one.

As for The Turn of the Screw -- our tastes differ! : )



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10 Aug 21 | 06:02PM by Dale Nelson.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish, I suspect you are right when you say
>
> ----The more I think about it, the more it seems
> to be merely use of the narrative conventions of
> the era. We (me) shouldn't think too much about
> these minor details, just pay for the story and
> read it.----
>
> Whether Stevenson assumed that the reader would go
> along with the story basically at face value even
> though he was aware of some weaknesses of logic,
> or wasn't fully aware of those weaknesses himself,
> I think Stevenson means this story to be a
> supernatural shocker. Author intention can't
> always be inferred and it can be a distraction
> from what was actually written. But I think a
> non-supernatural reading of the story requires
> strong evidence in the story to point to that,
> especially since it was published prior to the
> overt experimentalism of modernist writing.

I'm also coming around to the that conclusion the longer we discuss it.

Too, I now think that maybe Stevenson was, like Dickens, primarily a writer of commercial entertainment. While I was down at the gym today, on a stationary bike, I started a Stevenson story called The Dynamiter, and it starts with every cliched device I've seen in a while.

You know the bad CAS stories, where two or three Martian adventurers, who talk and act like the impresario from King Kong, get themselves into a jam?

Well, it just goes on and on, making me think Stevenson was being paid by the word.

>
> If so, then we would revert to the 2nd or 3rd
> possibilities in my 10:59 am posting, right?

Yes. For this discussion I'll go along with it, although I must say that the story, when taken not as a psychological examination of deep and compelling guilt, but as a commercial horror story, diminishes Stevenson somewhat, so far as I'm concerned, and this is because it's still not a really good story of its type.

>
> The text seems to support the third idea, that an
> "unnatural miracle" occurred. It may well be that
> the story leaves it at that and doesn't invite
> consideration of the question of who or what was
> the agent that worked this miracle. Thus the
> story would be a gruesome yarn that gradually
> reveals the villainy of Fettes and Macfarlane, the
> one an obvious wretch, the other a respected
> physician -- but we come to realize that, despite
> society's differing assessments, they are equally
> bad, or indeed that the more respected one of the
> two is the worse man. The story has an unexpected
> horror-climax for which the reader wasn't prepared
> in the manner of M. R. James, in whose stories the
> uncanny manifestations typically occur
> incrementally.

By this you mean the unexpected revelation that the corpse was not the old lady they dug up, but Gray, instead?

> Rather, in the light of the
> shocker ending we now understand retrospectively
> why Fettes gets blotto, with companions, every
> night and why Macfarlane was so alarmed to see his
> former partner, and why Fettes demands to know if
> he sees "it" too (the apparition of the murdered,
> dissected, and dismembered Gray).

Even taken as a standard supernatural tale it seems weak.

E.g., we have Gray appear in the place of the old lady to terrorize the two.

Why not Jane Galbraith? That would be even more complex because a minor element of pathos would be injected. It's no great pity that Gray is resurrected in poor condition, but if it were Jane, instead?...

Also, this causes Fettes to slovenly drinking, but MacFarlane hardly misses a beat.

Really, it makes much more sense as a guy being driven to drink by his inescapably guilty conscience. We already know that MacFarlane has no conscience, so that fact that none of these killings causes him a negative turn in his life is very plausible.

But if it is indeed Fettes trying to forget seeing Gray, all messed up, in lieu of the old lady, to my mind MacFarlane should be affe4cted every bit as much as Fettes. There is no indication that MacFarlane, callous as he is, would be unaffected by an unarguably tangible supernatural horror.

Yes. Not a compelling tale, so far as I'm concerned.

>
> But in my reading of the story this time -- I
> suppose I'd read it a couple of times before -- I
> wondered if there's a little more going on than
> this. Stevenson seems to emphasize Fettes'
> disdain for religion, what with his remarks such
> as the one about knowing for sure now that there
> is no God. Yet a "miracle" occurred.
>
> This brought to my mind the passage in the Gospel
> according to St. Luke, Chapter 16. The rich man
> died and descended to perdition, while Lazarus is
> safely with Father Abraham. The rich man tells
> Abraham to send Lazarus to the rich man's five
> brothers, to warn them....
>
> ----28For I have five brethren; that he may
> testify unto them, lest they also come into this
> place of torment. 29Abraham saith unto him, They
> have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
> 30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one
> went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
> 31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and
> the prophets, neither will they be persuaded,
> though one rose from the dead.----
>
> Abraham tells the damned rich man that even if
> Lazarus came from the dead to warn the brothers,
> they would not be convinced and repent, if they
> don't already believe on account of the
> Scriptures. The miracle wouldn't do them any
> good.
>
> In the Stevenson story, Fettes was not moved to
> repentance -- neither by his guilt, nor even by
> the "miracle" that he saw with his own eyes, of
> someone -- or something that came from the dead.
> The miracle doesn't do him any good.
>
> I doubt that Stevenson was writing a riff on Luke
> 16. So far as I know he was not a Christian
> believer; but he'd been raised as a Christian and
> he probably was familiar with the Luke passage.
> It's possible that it influenced him without his
> realizing it. Or perhaps after all he was
> consciously playing with the passage. That's not
> the point. The point is that the details of the
> story as we have it seem (to me) to invite a
> reading like this. This certainly doesn't make
> the story a Christian parable, and I certainly
> wasn't thinking of it as anything but a
> dimly-remembered horror story when I suggested we
> read it.

I am unable to follow you this far, Dale... ;^)

>
> But anyway is that a plausible reading? A
> "miracle" did occur, but it did neither man any
> spiritual good. Rather, they are haunted by their
> guilt and, probably, both are literally haunted by
> the ghastly remains of Gray.

Does "miracle" == "supernatural event"? To me, what happened was more along the lines of standard gothic supernatural. To view it as a miracle would be to say that Dracula turning into a bat is a miracle. Perhaps, if we stretch it that far--but no one ever does, perhaps for good reason.

>
> A lot of apparitions in stories are eerie, but
> Stevenson's bogey is a particularly horrid one.
>
> As for The Turn of the Screw -- our tastes differ!
> : )

:^)

--Sawfish

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

"Miracle" has more specific suggestion than "supernatural event" -- as you suggest. One wouldn't refer to seeing a ghost as seeing a miracle. But the word "miracle" is used in the story. I'm taking that fact a bit more seriously in my reading this time than I have previously.

Maybe after the "miracle" at the end of the story, both villains stopped exhuming corpses and even engaging in murder. If so, that was good, but clearly both men are still bad men. Seeing an indubitable miracle -- contrary to the typical claim of the skeptic, but in keeping with the Lukan passage -- does not convince someone who supposedly would believe, if only he could see a miracle.

Again, I'm saying I think this fits the story, but I don't mean that that is the point of the story. The agenda of the story, at least, as I take it, is to work up a suspenseful atmosphere crowned with a shocker ending. But I thought that the miracle element and other details of the story

M. R. James often tells a story in which a curious person, generally one with whom the reader sympathizes, encounters increasingly unsettling glimpses of a haunter that, at last, takes center stage so to speak. But there are no graduated glimpses of a haunter in the Stevenson story. Rather we readers learn more and more about how desperately bad the two villains are. Then, as something not prepared for, we have the abrupt, revolting supernatural horror of the corpse-substitution.

I don't think RLS wants pathos at the end. I think he wants to deliver a shock though without stepping over a line of taste and grossing out the reader as Stephen King would probably do.

I agree that claims for Stevenson's literary achievement will need to be based primarily on other works. But I liked "The Body Snatcher" more this time than before. The story has been described as a pot-boiler. It could've been published in Weird Tales and maybe was reprinted there (at no cost to the magazine). It would have stood out as better written than the material in the issue but not as something different in kind.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10 Aug 21 | 08:07PM by Dale Nelson.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Miracle" has more specific suggestion than
> "supernatural event" -- as you suggest. One
> wouldn't refer to seeing a ghost as seeing a
> miracle. But the word "miracle" is used in the
> story. I'm taking that fact a bit more seriously
> in my reading this time than I have previously.
>
> Maybe after the "miracle" at the end of the story,
> both villains stopped exhuming corpses and even
> engaging in murder. If so, that was good, but
> clearly both men are still bad men. Seeing an
> indubitable miracle -- contrary to the typical
> claim of the skeptic, but in keeping with the
> Lukan passage -- does not convince someone who
> supposedly would believe, if only he could see a
> miracle.
>
> Again, I'm saying I think this fits the story, but
> I don't mean that that is the point of the story.
> The agenda of the story, at least, as I take it,
> is to work up a suspenseful atmosphere crowned
> with a shocker ending. But I thought that the
> miracle element and other details of the story
>
> M. R. James often tells a story in which a curious
> person, generally one with whom the reader
> sympathizes, encounters increasingly unsettling
> glimpses of a haunter that, at last, takes center
> stage so to speak. But there are no graduated
> glimpses of a haunter in the Stevenson story.
> Rather we readers learn more and more about how
> desperately bad the two villains are. Then, as
> something not prepared for, we have the abrupt,
> revolting supernatural horror of the
> corpse-substitution.
>
> I don't think RLS wants pathos at the end. I
> think he wants to deliver a shock though without
> stepping over a line of taste and grossing out the
> reader as Stephen King would probably do.
>
> I agree that claims for Stevenson's literary
> achievement will need to be based primarily on
> other works. But I liked "The Body Snatcher" more
> this time than before. The story has been
> described as a pot-boiler. It could've been
> published in Weird Tales and maybe was reprinted
> there (at no cost to the magazine). It would have
> stood out as better written than the material in
> the issue but not as something different in kind.

Good discussion, Dale.

What's next? I'm ready for more--could be Stevenson, could be ???...

--Sawfish

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