Would there be interest in exploring RLS's weird writing? Most of it is fiction, but I wrote "Writing" because I wanted to allow a passage from Travels with a Donkey in the Cévennes and perhaps other nonfiction.

His stories belonging to the genre include The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, "Markheim," "Thrawn Janet," "The Isle of Voices," "The Bottle Imp," "The Body Snatcher," and perhaps others, including the one I propose we start with, "Olalla."


[www.gutenberg.net.au]

I don't want to say anything more about the story right now other than that this story is based on one or more nightmares and is the real deal. If you have never read it before, I recommend you do so now, & I don't think you will be sorry you did.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Would there be interest in exploring RLS's weird
> writing? Most of it is fiction, but I wrote
> "Writing" because I wanted to allow a passage from
> Travels with a Donkey in the Cévennes and perhaps
> other nonfiction.
>
> His stories belonging to the genre include The
> Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde,
> "Markheim," "Thrawn Janet," "The Isle of Voices,"
> "The Bottle Imp," "The Body Snatcher," and perhaps
> others, including the one I propose we start with,
> "Olalla."
>
>
> [www.gutenberg.net.au]
>
>
> I don't want to say anything more about the story
> right now other than that this story is based on
> one or more nightmares and is the real deal. If
> you have never read it before, I recommend you do
> so now, & I don't think you will be sorry you did.


I plan to read it today or tomorrow. I started reading your link, then downloaded and converted to EPUB and will be able to read it on an e-reader at the gym.

--Sawfish

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

Perhaps if I say a little more about "Olalla," some additional EDers will want to read it too. Hammond in his Robert Louis Stevenson Companion describes it as "a sustained study in horror which owes much in style and conception to the tales of Edgar Allan Poe. ...Again and again the reader is struck with the force of writing, so reminiscent of Poe." Stevenson's story "bears all the hallmarks of having been most carefully written," and "each element contributes to the unforgettable aura which pervades the story as a whole." The story is narrated "in the first person, [and] relates the experiences of a wounded soldier who journeys to a remote house in the Spanish mountains to convalesce. His hosts are a strange, taciturn family: an ageing, once beautiful mother; a son, Felipe, a bestial half-wit; and a mysterious, enigmatic daughter, Olalla, to whom the narrator is drawn by an irresistible attraction".... Hammond regards "Olalla" as "one of [Stevenson's] most consistently rewarding tales."

I think the soldier is from the British Isles, perhaps from Scotland like RLS himself. I don't remember if the story gives us information or clues that would indicate just when it is supposed to occur. In fact it might be that RLS deliberately doesn't go into detail on some humdrum details, as, say, Poe doesn't in "Fall of the House of Usher." But "Olalla" is probably closer to the length of Blackwood's "Willows" than to the length of the typical Poe story.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 27 Jul 21 | 04:47PM by Dale Nelson.

The Padre who visits the family at the residencia commends the narrator for having suffered in the "good cause." I'm wondering if possibly the soldier-narrator had been serving in the First Carlist War. Here's Wikipedia:

-----During the First Carlist War [1833-1840], Britain subsidised the Spanish armed forces, just as it had done during the Peninsular War. This was vital to the Spanish war economy, as, since the Napoleonic Wars, the Spanish armed forces had been poorly funded, a legacy of the loss of the majority of Spain's colonial empire. Furthermore, the UK provided a large direct military contribution; the 10,000-strong British Legion, led by George de Lacy Evans, saw action in Navarre and contributed greatly to the suppression of the revolt.------

"Olalla" did not make a strong impression on me on first read. Perhaps I was setting myself up for disappointment. Someone had suggested it as a werewolf story, which is perhaps not really accurate. As I child, I had had nightmares about werewolves, inspired by a Pauline Baynes illustration from the Narnia books. As a result, I have always sought out werewolf stories that might replicate that feeling of horror, but have usually been disappointed.

On second read "Olalla" still does not make much impression on me. There are moments of horror, but no climax. The story just sort of peters out.

I much prefer "Thrawn Janet".

Platypus, as soon as I read what you said about Pauline Baynes's drawing, I remembered the picture you must have in mind. For those who don't remember it or haven't seen it: Baynes's conception of a werewolf is quite different from the "Wolfman" conception. It's more wolfish. If a live actor in pre-CGI days had been going to wear a costume to approximate Baynes's conception, that actor would've needed to be someone like Sandra Gimpel at the time she played the role of the "salt vampire" in Star Trek's "Man Trap" teleplay -- or the remarkable Janos Prohaska.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 28 Jul 21 | 09:47AM by Dale Nelson.

So far as descriptive technique in setting and character development, plus choice of expository actions (e.g. Filipe "singing" as they walked--which added a certain depth to who/what Filipe is) Stevenson is terrific!

Too there is a brief transition in the weather that is nothing so much as a description of something a lot like a SoCal Santa Ana. These, too make people very edgy, especially close to the coast.

I still must finish it, but I've really enjoyed his ability to set up a tale.

--Sawfish

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



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 28 Jul 21 | 10:38AM by Sawfish.

Here are some comments I wrote up.


“Olalla” invites discussion of numerous topics, but my first observation is that it’s an intriguing story from that late 19th-early 20th-century period from which many masterpieces of high fantasy, dark fantasy, and science fiction come. One has only to mention the names of M. R. James, Henry James, Blackwood, Machen, Hodgson, MacDonald, Morris, Doyle, Stoker, Haggard, Wells, Buchan, de la Mare, Onions (“The Beckoning Fair One”) et al. to get a sense of it; and Stevenson was one of the greatest figures in this panoply.

A strength of these authors, certainly of Stevenson, typically was the capacity to conjure a sense of place. Reading “Olalla” again, I found that there were many details of plot that I’d forgotten, but I’d remembered the atmosphere of the isolated Spanish residencia. It’ll be the desire to revisit that eerie setting that’ll draw me back to this story again rather than primarily a desire to experience particular plot elements, e.g. the sensational incident of the vicious bite endured by the soldier.

Stevenson’s handling of the degeneracy plot contrasts with the schlocky way, I suppose, a pulp author of the subsequent period would have handled it (the soldier and the daughter would’ve had a torrid night and then she or her mother would’ve attacked him & he’d have barely escaped or would’ve killed her/them in self-defense).

Restraining the potential for the lurid lets Stevenson make the story altogether more persuasive, imaginatively. It could be called a story of the man’s world of action (the soldier’s life) and the woman’s domestic world. But where he is, presumably, accustomed to a straightforward milieu of obedience to authority, of the rules of engagement with the enemy, of known risks, etc., now he finds himself dealing pretty much on his own with situations and emotions he doesn’t understand, partly, of course, due to his being a foreigner in someone else’s country, but more basically because at the residencia he doesn’t understand at first what has been happening away here on the plateau as an ancient family has declined.

He is greatly attracted to Olalla – I take it that he really does fall in love with her at first sight and she with him. But tragedy awaits him. Olalla is the last of her “race” (the mother is presumably past childbearing and Olalla’s brother is unlikely to beget children), and she knows she carries the potential for transmitting hereditary madness. I take it that, at the end, Olalla is on her way to a convent where she will become a nun, sacrificing personal happiness because that is the right thing to do. She has indeed chosen the world of contemplation rather than that of action by one great action she’s about to make. The narrator-protagonist is not only not a Roman Catholic but not a Christian of some other variety, so this aspect of Olalla too is somewhat to him (emphasized by his reactions to the wayside shrine).

Thus “Olalla” is a story of character too, as it would not be in a pulp treatment. It’s like Hawthorne’s “Rappaccini’s Daughter” in that way. All of the characterization seems to me successful. The narrator succeeds as a stand-in for the reader, a visitor from our world, a good guy, admirable. The supporting characters function well. The mother is a sinister catlike being, roasting herself in the sun but capable of sudden violent action. Olalla’s brother is good as a source of plot excitement – interesting, unpredictable, possibly dangerous, and pathetic.

Some readers might find the brief dialogue between the soldier and Olalla about their love to be too rhetorical. If Stevenson were obviously trying to write a naturalistic story in the manner of Hemingway or Steinbeck this would be a fault, but Stevenson would be at fault if he wrote the dialogue in their manner. The dialogue RLS did write is appropriate for more reasons than one. It helps to convey the sense that this story occurred in an earlier time, for one thing. Also, though it might seem too literary to some, RLS is sparing in his use of it; there really isn’t very much. And, at least for the time it takes to read the story, one ought to grant Stevenson’s postulate that human beings are – or used to be – capable of experiences of the soul that are transformative, transcending the more humdrum feelings of daily life and, certainly, the mere instinctual life of animals. If it helps, one might think of Hawthorne’s story already mentioned, the famous novels of the Brontës, of opera, etc. There may be a “higher realism” possible to literature that requires elevated diction in dialogue. Such at least is the testimony of thousands of years of literature. It’s not that elevated diction is good or is bad in itself; is it well done and appropriate for the literary occasion? I think it’s at least satisfactory here.

Olalla's appearance reminds me of Mary McCarthy's description, in her book on Florence I think, of the modern conception of beauty as a mixture of strangeness and allure.

I hope there can be some more discussion here and now about "Olalla," but our next Stevenson story could be another one named for a woman character, "Thrawn [Twisted] Janet."

Here is a link to the text of "Thrawn Janet."

[www.gutenberg.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 28 Jul 21 | 06:18PM by Dale Nelson.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Platypus, as soon as I read what you said about
> Pauline Baynes's drawing, I remembered the picture
> you must have in mind. For those who don't
> remember it or haven't seen it: Baynes's
> conception of a werewolf is quite different from
> the "Wolfman" conception. It's more wolfish.

Yes. And I think it became even more wolfish in my dreams. When I later encountered the fur-faced werewolves of early Hollywood, I thought them a sad joke. But what struck me about the werewolf was that, even though it was just a static sketch, you could tell that the werewolf was moving fast. It is leaping onto Caspian with mouth open, and you can tell that it will reach Caspian before Caspian can his sword out of his sheath, as he is trying to do.

In my dreams, I would see the werewolf, and, upon noticing me, the werewolf would come loping toward me with giant strides on it's half-canine hind legs, and of course then I would wake up because no other escape was possible.

But speaking of dreams, and of "Olalla", Stevenson says in his essay "A Chapter on Dreams" that "Olalla" was based on some dreams he had. As I understand, his dreams included certain scenes in the interior of the Residencia and its court; all the external events having been added. It is maybe no accident that the interior scenes are the ones most vivid and haunting.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Padre who visits the family at the residencia
> commends the narrator for having suffered in the
> "good cause." I'm wondering if possibly the
> soldier-narrator had been serving in the First
> Carlist War. Here's Wikipedia:
>
> -----During the First Carlist War [1833-1840],
> Britain subsidised the Spanish armed forces, just
> as it had done during the Peninsular War. This was
> vital to the Spanish war economy, as, since the
> Napoleonic Wars, the Spanish armed forces had been
> poorly funded, a legacy of the loss of the
> majority of Spain's colonial empire. Furthermore,
> the UK provided a large direct military
> contribution; the 10,000-strong British Legion,
> led by George de Lacy Evans, saw action in Navarre
> and contributed greatly to the suppression of the
> revolt.------


I'm not sure it is necessary to go that far back. The Third Carlist War, which ended 1876, was more recent, and since no specific war is mentioned, that might be the more natural assumption. The story does not mention any official involvement of British troops fighting under a British flag, so perhaps there is no need to look for indications of that in prior wars. Rather, the Spanish doctor seems to regard the protagonist as a veteran of Spanish forces, to whom locals and the current regime therefore owe some responsibility.

There is mention of a "lost convoy" if anything can be made of that.

Wikipedia says, I don't know on what basis, that the story is set following the Peninsular War of circa 1814, which is even further back. But of course Wikipedia is not a source, and they don't give a source.

Platypus Wrote:

> But speaking of dreams, and of "Olalla", Stevenson
> says in his essay "A Chapter on Dreams" that
> "Olalla" was based on some dreams he had.

I'll have to look up that essay in the next day or two -- thanks for the tip. RLS's essays have mostly been, so far, neglected by me.

Platypus Wrote:

> I'm not sure it is necessary to go that far back.
> The Third Carlist War, which ended 1876, was more
> recent, and since no specific war is mentioned,
> that might be the more natural assumption. The
> story does not mention any official involvement of
> British troops fighting under a British flag, so
> perhaps there is no need to look for indications
> of that in prior wars. Rather, the Spanish doctor
> seems to regard the protagonist as a veteran of
> Spanish forces, to whom locals and the current
> regime therefore owe some responsibility.
>
> There is mention of a "lost convoy" if anything
> can be made of that.

The impression I had is that the narrator, who's clearly from the British Isles, had been left behind, expected to die in Spain; and that the First Carlist War was the one in which British troops had been most active. But I know next to nothing about them.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dale Nelson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Padre who visits the family at the
> residencia
> > commends the narrator for having suffered in
> the
> > "good cause." I'm wondering if possibly the
> > soldier-narrator had been serving in the First
> > Carlist War. Here's Wikipedia:
> >
> > -----During the First Carlist War [1833-1840],
> > Britain subsidised the Spanish armed forces,
> just
> > as it had done during the Peninsular War. This
> was
> > vital to the Spanish war economy, as, since the
> > Napoleonic Wars, the Spanish armed forces had
> been
> > poorly funded, a legacy of the loss of the
> > majority of Spain's colonial empire.
> Furthermore,
> > the UK provided a large direct military
> > contribution; the 10,000-strong British Legion,
> > led by George de Lacy Evans, saw action in
> Navarre
> > and contributed greatly to the suppression of
> the
> > revolt.------
>
>
> I'm not sure it is necessary to go that far back.
> The Third Carlist War, which ended 1876, was more
> recent, and since no specific war is mentioned,
> that might be the more natural assumption. The
> story does not mention any official involvement of
> British troops fighting under a British flag, so
> perhaps there is no need to look for indications
> of that in prior wars. Rather, the Spanish doctor
> seems to regard the protagonist as a veteran of
> Spanish forces, to whom locals and the current
> regime therefore owe some responsibility.
>
> There is mention of a "lost convoy" if anything
> can be made of that.
>
> Wikipedia says, I don't know on what basis, that
> the story is set following the Peninsular War of
> circa 1814, which is even further back. But of
> course Wikipedia is not a source, and they don't
> give a source.

There are the clues in the text that the narrator may be Scottish...

"...Some thoughts of Scottish superstition and the river Kelpie, passed across my mind; I wondered if perchance the like were prevalent in that part of Spain; and turning to Felipe, sought to draw him out."

and

"...He said never a word, but he turned his mule about, end for end, retraced some part of the way we had gone, and, striking into another path, led me to the mountain village, which was, as we say in Scotland, the kirkton of that thinly peopled district."

Stevenson was Scottish, and so in a way this binds the narrator more closely to Stevenson, himself.

--Sawfish

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

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> late 19th- early 20th-century period from which many masterpieces
> of high fantasy, dark fantasy, and science fiction
> come. One has only to mention the names of M. R.
> James, Henry James, Blackwood, Machen, Hodgson,
> MacDonald, Morris, Doyle, Stoker, Haggard, Wells,
> Buchan, de la Mare, Onions (“The Beckoning Fair
> One”) et al. to get a sense of it; and Stevenson
> was one of the greatest figures in this panoply.
>
> A strength of these authors, certainly of
> Stevenson, typically was the capacity to conjure a
> sense of place.

The peculiarity of this short period, is that it weirdly also had an open window onto the spiritual dimension. And they truly believed in it. Not just using it for imaginative metaphor or psychological symbolism.

Sawfish Wrote:
> There are the clues in the text that the narrator
> may be Scottish...

The narrator certainly seems to be Scottish. The doctor refers to him English, but no doubt to a Spaniard, that term applies to anyone from Great Britain who speaks any kind of English.

All I am saying is that an Englishman or Scotsman can fight for a Spanish cause without any official involvement of the British government.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> All I am saying is that an Englishman or Scotsman
> can fight for a Spanish cause without any official
> involvement of the British government.


Evidently that wasn't the case in this story, since the narrator was left behind by that "convoy." But RLS doesn't encourage us to try to pin things down about this, does he?

Dale Nelson Wrote:
> Evidently that wasn't the case in this story,
> since the narrator was left behind by that
> "convoy." But RLS doesn't encourage us to try to
> pin things down about this, does he?

Convoys are usually naval, but I have an idea that in this case it might be a supply convoy of pack mules and/or wagons. But if there was a well-known incident involving a lost convoy and English soldiers in Spain, I have not been able to find it. Nor does it say if those who left him for dead were English or Spanish.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2 Aug 21 | 06:41PM by Platypus.

In "Olalla", The city in which the Protagonist is convalescing, which he leaves by the Eastern Gate before he ascends to the Sierra, is meant to be Seville, I guess.

The remarks about the protagonist not being a Christian are apparently autobiographic. Stevenson rejected Christianity and became something close to an atheist, much to the dismay of his mum and dad. It is curious how much religious content has crept into this story, apparently by way of a dream.

I'll have to read a Stevenson biography one of these days, perhaps the Furnas that I have, or one of the more recent ones, such as Ian Bell's. Ian Bell was the name of the author of a self-published (I think) small book on William Hope Hodgson, but something gave me the impression that these were not the same person.

[richarddalbyslibrary.com]

That's the Hodgson book I was thinking of. I was glad I bought one!

I just came across Lord Blayney's "Narrative of a Forced Journey through Spain and France as a Prisoner of War in the Years 1810 to 1814" (London, 1814), which describes the Battle of Fuengirola (1810) and its aftermath. At Fuengirola, Anglo-Spanish forces under the command of Blayney were defeated by French-Polish forces, and Blayney and about 200 of his men were taken prisoner. Subsequently, Blayney and other prisoners of war were marched through Spain as part of a French-Polish supply convoy. This convoy was attacked by Spanish forces/bandits, and Blayney mentions that a number of English prisoners-of-war escaped or were otherwise left behind during these attacks.

It is possible that these events inspired whatever Stevenson had in mind in "Olalla".

Intriguing detective work there.

You seem to be on the way to Robert Louis Stevenson’s “Olalla”: An Annotated Edition!

iDale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Intriguing detective work there.
>
> You seem to be on the way to Robert Louis
> Stevenson’s “Olalla”: An Annotated Edition!


I have to add my appreciation to Dale's.

This sort of ancillary information always makes the thread more enjoyable, and I know damned well that I'd never be able to make these kinds of substantive contributions--don't even know how I'd go about doing it.

I feel like the fortunate recipient in situations like these.

--Sawfish

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

"Thrawn Janet"!

Stevenson has a creepy enough story to tell -- something that might have been dramatized as a Quiet, Please radio play. But he's up to more than that. He wants to evoke a bygone time and a place that, for most readers, will be remote, though the location is probably not in the Highlands. The dialect in which the story is told is essential for what Stevenson wants to accomplish. It would be interesting to hear this read by a native speaker with good narrator skills.

There's this:

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 5 Aug 21 | 09:46PM by Dale Nelson.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Thrawn Janet"!
>
> Stevenson has a creepy enough story to tell --
> something that might have been dramatized as a
> Quiet, Please radio play. But he's up to more
> than that. He wants to evoke a bygone time and a
> place that, for most readers, will be remote,
> though the location is probably not in the
> Highlands. The dialect in which the story is told
> is essential for what Stevenson wants to
> accomplish. It would be interesting to hear this
> read by a native speaker with good narrator
> skills.
>
> There's this:
>
> [www.youtube.com]

I just completed Thrawn Janet last night.

It can be a fairly slow read due to the dialect, but after a while your internal "ear" gets into the rhythm, and you may find yourself chuckling at the way English-based vocabulary devolved into the anglicized pidgin-like speech used in stories like this.

As a side note, I can recall reading an Englishman's description of spoken Gaelic Scots as "sounding like a man choking on a fishbone."

There were really creepy moments, and I'm thinking that the heavy dialect tends to hint at what's going on, like an impressionistic brush stroke, allowing your own imagination to flesh it out from several distinctly unpleasant possibilities.

A good recommendation, Dale.

--Sawfish

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

I'm sympathetic to the idea that Lowland Scots, as used in this story, is a sister language of English, but I don't know what prospects of survival it really has, since languages change, and only something over a million people speak it as opposed to the enormous number of speakers of English -- obviously a Scots speaker will need English too. A writer might hesitate to write his poems and stories in Scots given the small audience available. But then Isaac Bashevis Singer wrote in Yiddish, now estimated at 600,000 speakers -- and his stories were reworked for English readers. Interesting to think of Yiddish and Scots as being both West Germanic languages!

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sympathetic to the idea that Lowland Scots, as
> used in this story, is a sister language of
> English, but I don't know what prospects of
> survival it really has, since languages change,
> and only something over a million people speak it
> as opposed to the enormous number of speakers of
> English -- obviously a Scots speaker will need
> English too. A writer might hesitate to write his
> poems and stories in Scots given the small
> audience available. But then Isaac Bashevis
> Singer wrote in Yiddish, now estimated at 600,000
> speakers -- and his stories were reworked for
> English readers. Interesting to think of Yiddish
> and Scots as being both West Germanic languages!

The evolution of Scots from middle english interests me because it seems likely that a lot of Scots (lowland Scottish) vocabulary must be influenced by Gaelic Scots, which is a Celtic language.

As a kid, like other kids of my generation, there was still a lot of "Hollywood" stock characters (cartoons, old films) who used accents designed to be recognizable by the entire English speaking audience of the era. I think the roots of these stage dialects were from vaudeville.

And it was used so much that most Americans assumed that they knew how various nationalities would speak, and the characteristic pronunciations they'd use. So it came as a sort of mild surprise to me as I grew older and maybe worked with German engineers, for example, and their accents were nothing like the Germans on Hogan's Heroes, or from the old WWII era cartoons that were still being played regularly on TV, after school. In fact, these German accents were probably closer to Yiddish than German.

Same with French accents. You'd gett he first signal that you were supposed to understand that the character was French, because the first thing they'd say was either "Oooh, la, la!", or "Sacre bleu!".

Of course, there'd be "Mama mia!" for Italian characters, and "Faith and begorra!" for Irishmen.

Same for the walrus on Woody Woodpecker, obviously a Scandinavian (Swede, probably), because he'd say, "Yompin' Yimminy, you dirty voodpecker!".

So all this is supposed to be funny, to cheer readers up this AM--and I for one think it is--but it shows how much our standard default perceptions are shaped by what amounts to constant marketing, whether purposeful and targeted, or otherwise.

I've met very few foreign nationals whose accented English sounds anything like the films stereotypes.

--Sawfish

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

I suppose much of the humor of the old "minstrel shows" was derived from the schtick about black Americans mangling standard English -- perhaps a variation on the even older "Mrs. Malaprop" thing.

But of course Stevenson, in "Thrawn Janet," is -- I take it -- not at all aiming for comic effect but for authentic Scots to help make the story convincing.

This reminds me of Lovecraft's famous rural New Englanders. Did Lovecraft's spellings of "now" as "naow" and so on actually reflect what a speaker of English pronounced in a more "standard" way would have thought he was hearing if he ventured into deeply rural areas? For that matter, how much of Massachusetts was deeply rural by Lovecraft's day? A sociological question.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But of course Stevenson, in "Thrawn Janet," is --
> I take it -- not at all aiming for comic effect
> but for authentic Scots to help make the story
> convincing.

Agreed. Stevenson's use of Scots is hard to distinguish from that of George MacDonald in his novels, except that MacDonald tended to reserve his use of Scots to portray local dialogue, and tended to write the rest of his text in standard English. Stevenson tries to capture an entire tale as if it had been told by a local Scots storyteller.

> This reminds me of Lovecraft's famous rural New
> Englanders. Did Lovecraft's spellings of "now" as
> "naow" and so on actually reflect what a speaker
> of English pronounced in a more "standard" way
> would have thought he was hearing if he ventured
> into deeply rural areas?

Use of phonetic spelling to record dialect was an accepted technique during this period. And I think that is all that HPL was consciously attempting.

But I sometimes suspect an element of mockery, or at least carelessness, in HPL's portrait of local dialect. I understand the difference between "naow" and "now", but I sometimes wonder what is the difference in pronunciation between "God" and "Gawd"; and I sometimes wonder if HPL is trying to portray pronunciation, or merely imply that that the speaker does not know how to spell. Certainly HPL is guilty of a level of class snobbery that is largely absent from the novels of George MacDonald.

Platypus -- you've read some of MacDonald's realistic novels? I thought I was the only one! Sir Gibbie is overdue for a rereading. (Btw, I believe Mark Twain was quite an admirer of that one.)

I've read several of the realistic novels, & have a few on hand that I haven't read yet. Annals of a Quiet Neighbourhood is the only one of them that I've reread, unless one counts The Portent among the realistic novels.

As for the romances/fantasy novels -- I esteem Lilith as one of a handful of the greatest masterpieces in the form.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sympathetic to the idea that Lowland Scots, as
> used in this story, is a sister language of
> English, but I don't know what prospects of
> survival it really has, since languages change,
> and only something over a million people speak it
> as opposed to the enormous number of speakers of
> English -- obviously a Scots speaker will need
> English too.

Well, the radio and the TV are gradually eliminating local dialects, and this has been going on for some time. But I cannot regard Scots as a separate language from standard English. I have tried, with minimal success for much effort, to study real foreign languages -- such as Latin, French, and Spanish -- and I know the difference. Learning enough to manage Scots involves vastly more success, for vastly less effort.

Maybe I'd be overstating it if I said that Scots was merely English with a few non-standard pronunciations and a few non-standard words. There are actually quite alot of non-standard pronunciations and quite alot of non-standard words. But still, the difference between Scots and French is like night and day.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dale Nelson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'm sympathetic to the idea that Lowland Scots,
> as
> > used in this story, is a sister language of
> > English, but I don't know what prospects of
> > survival it really has, since languages change,
> > and only something over a million people speak
> it
> > as opposed to the enormous number of speakers
> of
> > English -- obviously a Scots speaker will need
> > English too.
>
> Well, the radio and the TV are gradually
> eliminating local dialects, and this has been
> going on for some time. But I cannot regard Scots
> as a separate language from standard English. I
> have tried, with minimal success for much effort,
> to study real foreign languages -- such as Latin,
> French, and Spanish -- and I know the difference.
> Learning enough to manage Scots involves vastly
> more success, for vastly less effort.
>
> Maybe I'd be overstating it if I said that Scots
> was merely English with a few non-standard
> pronunciations and a few non-standard words.
> There are actually quite alot of non-standard
> pronunciations and quite alot of non-standard
> words. But still, the difference between Scots
> and French is like night and day.

There's Scots, which I take to be a very heavily modified form of English, but English nonetheless, and there's Garlic Scots, which is not English in any sense.

--Sawfish

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

Garlic Scots isn't available in the small North Dakota town where I live. To get that kind of pizza, with lumps of haggis and sliced neeps added to a rank garlic sauce, you'd have to live in Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, or LA. I can only imagine. It must be delicious.

I think Lowland Scots reflects the Norse incursion into northern England and Scotland, but I'm rusty on that linguistic stuff.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 6 Aug 21 | 03:48PM by Dale Nelson.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Garlic Scots isn't available in the small North
> Dakota town where I live. To get that kind of
> pizza, with lumps of haggis and sliced neeps added
> to a rank garlic sauce, you'd have to live in
> Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, or LA. I can
> only imagine. It must be delicious.

HAH!

>
> I think Lowland Scots reflects the Norse incursion
> into northern England and Scotland, but I'm rusty
> on that linguistic stuff.

--Sawfish

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

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Platypus -- you've read some of MacDonald's
> realistic novels?

I've read three: Heather and Snow, Warlock o'Glenwarlock, and St. George and St. Michael. I enjoyed all 3. The first 2 are set in Scotland and feature dialogue in Scots English. The third is a historical novel set during the English Civil War.

I also read The Portent, which for whatever reason made no impression upon me.

I'll have to try Sir Gibbie, since you particularly recommend it. Sadly, it is not among the ancient volumes I inherited.

Sawfish Wrote:
> There's Scots, which I take to be a very heavily
> modified form of English, but English nonetheless,
> and there's Garlic Scots, which is not English in
> any sense.

Garlic jokes aside, Dale did use the phrase "Lowland Scots", which I understood to refer to the English dialect; since evidently Scottish Gaelic is more likely to be spoken by Highlanders.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> > There's Scots, which I take to be a very
> heavily
> > modified form of English, but English
> nonetheless,
> > and there's Garlic Scots, which is not English
> in
> > any sense.
>
> Garlic jokes aside, Dale did use the phrase
> "Lowland Scots", which I understood to refer to
> the English dialect;

Yes, understood.

> since evidently Scottish
> Gaelic is more likely to be spoken by Highlanders.

It's really fun to look at a dialect map of Scotland and from it try to intuit cultural/ethnic migrations. Much of the speculation (mine, anyhow) would likely be wrong, but still it's fun, then try to find out definitively what actually happened.

E.g., [vividmaps.com]

Looking at this map leads one to think that Scandinavian coastal incursions, from Norway, probably, account for the Norse areas. One might expect similar incursions into Ireland, as well.

Then look at the Gaelic area. It's like Ireland, but which was the original source for the other?

Then there is the case of the Scots Irish, and off the top of my head, I'm thinking that this group was perhaps an incursion by political policy, to provide a more English friendly foothold in Ireland, apparently becoming the main constituency in Ulster.

--Sawfish

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

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dale Nelson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Platypus -- you've read some of MacDonald's
> > realistic novels?
>
> I've read three: Heather and Snow, Warlock
> o'Glenwarlock, and St. George and St. Michael. I
> enjoyed all 3. The first 2 are set in Scotland
> and feature dialogue in Scots English. The third
> is a historical novel set during the English Civil
> War.
>
> I also read The Portent, which for whatever reason
> made no impression upon me.
>
> I'll have to try Sir Gibbie, since you
> particularly recommend it. Sadly, it is not among
> the ancient volumes I inherited.

That's great -- inheriting ancient GM volumes! Back in the late 1980s, I bought a number of reading copy-quality old editions of GM novels at affordable prices, & I do like those copies, even though several of them are rather plain.

The GM novels, as opposed to romances/fantasies that I've read, are ("old" copies marked with *):

David Elginbrod*
Robert Falconer*
Malcolm*
Marquis of Lossie*
Alec Forbes of Howglen
Sir Gibbie
A Rough Shaking*
Wilfrid Cumbermede (the first 50 pages or so are wonderful)*
Castle Warlock*
Ranald Bannerman’s Boyhood
Annals of a Quiet Neighbourhood
St. George & St. Michael*

At the Back of the North Wind is a combination of realistic novel and fantasy, which I've read twice and expect to read again. The next MacDonald novel I'll read will likely be either a rereading of Sir Gibbie or a first completed reading of What's Mine's Mine(*).

I had to check my records. It seems it's been over 15 years since I read one of the realistic novels through, but I've read quite a few of them since my first one back in 1975. I'd already become a confirmed admirer of his fantasy by then.

In "Thrawn Janet" I would like to understand the sequence of events of the story, if I'm framing this concern correctly. What I'm after is the apparent cause of Janet's condition, and the nature of any constraints placed up her or the black man (Satan). I had to work pretty hard with the dialect and feel I missed cause/effect pairings.

So as I recall, Janet became the house servant for the pastor, against all advice of the congregation, and this was because it was common knowledge that she had some kind of bargain with the devil. Is this correct?

So then he made her swear aloud that she had nothing to do with the devil, which she did while making gruesome faces.

Later she had a stroke, or as the congregation thought, was clearly possessed.

Later the pastor caught sight of the black man, who made his way to the manse.

Then the pastor performed some kind of exorcism on Janet, and it turned out she was apparently dead for quite some time.

Then the black left for good, and the pastor became the same nervous character as he was described at the beginning of the tale.

Is this more-or-less the basic situation and series of events?

--Sawfish

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

I take it, without referring to the text of the story, that

Janet was a social outcast because of having had an illicit relationship that the village was aware of; but the pastor, perhaps out of compassion, hired her as housekeeper. He required her publicly to renounce the devil and she did so -- completely hypocritically. At that point she was stricken and her neck was twisted or even broken. After this, she was still alive till she hanged herself. But then her body still walked, animated by an evil spirit till it was exorcised.

Mebbe I'll go back to the text!

Sawfish Wrote:
> So as I recall, Janet became the house servant for
> the pastor, against all advice of the
> congregation, and this was because it was common
> knowledge that she had some kind of bargain with
> the devil. Is this correct?

That's the crux of it, yes. Other details (an out of wedlock child; her avoidance of communion; her occasionally-vindictive tongue) are basically trivia, except that they explain, in the mind of the pastor, why her unpopularity has caused her to be wrongly accused of witchcraft.

> So then he made her swear aloud that she had
> nothing to do with the devil, which she did while
> making gruesome faces.

Right. She swore she was innocent of all charges except the out-of-wedlock child.

> Later she had a stroke, or as the congregation
> thought, was clearly possessed.

Specifically, the villagers thought she was dead and her corpse possessed. The pastor thinks their cruelty has caused her to have a stroke. The local storyteller is basically on the side of the villagers.

If we assume that the villagers are correct, and she has died at this point, there are hints in the story that she may have died by hanging.

> Later the pastor caught sight of the black man,
> who made his way to the manse.

Right. And upon seeing Janet after entering the house the pastor feels the same cold grue he felt when seeing the black man. The implication is that the devil is now inside Janet's body.

Despite this, the storyteller clearly believes that Janet's corpse has been dead and possessed ever since her supposed stroke, perhaps by a lesser evil spirit.

> Then the pastor performed some kind of exorcism on
> Janet, and it turned out she was apparently dead
> for quite some time.

After some surreal encounters with the Janet-Thing in the house, the feverish pastor takes a candle and flees outside into the storm. The Janet-Thing follows him. As the Janet-Thing approaches, the wind blows out his candle, leaving the pastor in darkness. The pastor calls on God's aid. A lightning bolt strikes the Janet-Thing, reducing it to ashes. The local storyteller's explanation for this was that Janet had been dead and demon-haunted for so long that her corpse burnt easily.

> Then the black left for good, and the pastor
> became the same nervous character as he was
> described at the beginning of the tale.

The "rational explanation" for all this, is that Janet is an innocent stroke victim, and that the pastor became ill and had some fever-dream visions that night. But, if so, what became of the real Janet?



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 7 Aug 21 | 07:01PM by Platypus.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
MUCH SNIPPED...

> The "rational explanation" for all this, is that
> Janet is an innocent stroke victim, and that the
> pastor became ill and had some fever-dream visions
> that night. But, if so, what became of the real
> Janet?


Thanks, Platypus. This was very helpful.

--Sawfish

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

Are we ready for a third story? What about “The Body Snatcher”? It’s available at Project Gutenberg online, in Tales and Fanasies, by RLS.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are we ready for a third story? What about “The
> Body Snatcher”? It’s available at Project
> Gutenberg online, in Tales and Fanasies, by RLS.


Sounds fine to me.

I'm ready for a break from Plato's Laws.

--Sawfish

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

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are we ready for a third story? What about “The
> Body Snatcher”? It’s available at Project
> Gutenberg online, in Tales and Fanasies, by RLS.

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

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."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Platypus mentioned RLS’s “ The Merry Men,” which I don’t think I’ve read before. Let’s read it. There are at least four more RLSs to read after that one, too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10 Aug 21 | 09:32PM by Dale Nelson.

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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?

I would say (d). None of the above. Gray is a stranger, and knows Macfarlane by another name, "Toddy". My guess therefore, is that he knows him by other, unconnected, sins, from another place and time. He is blackmailing Macfarlane about something (never mind what) and Gray's only connection to the body snatch murders are that he is about to become a victim.

I would guess that, for all Macfarlane's brave talk about being a "lion", he has never directly committed murder before. Gray is his first. His only guilt in the Burke-and-Hare killings was to look the other way.

So I guess it makes psychological sense that Macfarlane, like Fettes, is now haunted. Whether he is literally haunted, or whether there is a rational explanation, is I guess up to the reader.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10 Aug 21 | 10:28PM by Platypus.

Sawfish Wrote:
> E.g., we have Gray appear in the place of the old
> lady to terrorize the two.
>
> Why not Jane Galbraith?

I guess because she was murdered (directly) by the 2 Irishmen (who are evidently the infamous Burke and Hare) and not by Fettes or Macfarlane.

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

Seems to me they were both engaged in slovenly drinking, at least on that climactic night.

> 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.

It's not clear to me that Macfarlane has no conscience. He talks big at times, but then again, so does Fettes.

> 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.

Initially, Macfarlane does seem to be far less affected than Fettes is. But Macfarlane's reaction to Fette's final question suggests that Macfarlane is indeed deeply affected, if maybe in a different way.

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

The climax, taken by itself, is a bit weak. But I have this image in my head, inspired by Macfarlane's reaction to Fette's last question, that Macfarlane is still to this day haunted by that Thing, still driving around in the seat of that horse and cart.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10 Aug 21 | 11:04PM by Platypus.

I've started The Merry Men. The title, itself, is a grim irony, we come to find out.

The first chapter does a remarkable and compelling job of establishing the physical setting. In a way, it feels otherworldly, in the sense that while it conforms to known physical and geographical properties, putting them all together in combination makes for a place like I've never seen. It is isolated physical, and also temporally.

I've gotten as far as the anomalous objects and materials on Aros, possibly artifacts from the Espiritu Santo.

Very intriguing thus far.

--Sawfish

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

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> > E.g., we have Gray appear in the place of the
> old
> > lady to terrorize the two.
> >
> > Why not Jane Galbraith?
>
> I guess because she was murdered (directly) by the
> 2 Irishmen (who are evidently the infamous Burke
> and Hare) and not by Fettes or Macfarlane.
>
> > Also, this causes Fettes to slovenly drinking,
> but
> > MacFarlane hardly misses a beat.
>
> Seems to me they were both engaged in slovenly
> drinking, at least on that climactic night.
>
> > 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.
>
> It's not clear to me that Macfarlane has no
> conscience. He talks big at times, but then
> again, so does Fettes.
>
> > 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.
>
> Initially, Macfarlane does seem to be far less
> affected than Fettes is. But Macfarlane's
> reaction to Fette's final question suggests that
> Macfarlane is indeed deeply affected, if maybe in
> a different way.
>
> > Yes. Not a compelling tale, so far as I'm
> > concerned.
>
> The climax, taken by itself, is a bit weak. But I
> have this image in my head, inspired by
> Macfarlane's reaction to Fette's last question,
> that Macfarlane is still to this day haunted by
> that Thing, still driving around in the seat of
> that horse and cart.

You know, maybe the most economical explanation for my interpretation is that I'm an overly enthusiastic fan of unreliable POV, which probably was not a common narrative mode of the era.

So what I'm doing is a lot like what happens in liberal arts colleges nowadays when evaluating historical figures: not using the standards of their day, but using today's standards.

...but that's OK, because *I'm* the one doing it... ;^)

--Sawfish

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

Whoa!

About to go out on a speculative limb, here...

I'm only as far as the first conversation between the narrator and Mary, but there are hints that maybe this story has as its central impetus the distasteful practice of the inhabitants of isolated parts of the Scottish/Irish coasts who lured ships into lethal waters using false lights, etc., then robbed the wrecks, killing the survivors, if any.

So this situation takes ordinary, ostensibly God-fearin', rural fisherfolk, and makes them into cold-blooded killers for personal gain.

I'm eager to see if that's where this story goes.

--Sawfish

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

I'll start reading this story this afternoon!

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Platypus mentioned RLS’s “ The Merry Men,”
> which I don’t think I’ve read before. Let’s
> read it. There are at least four more RLSs to
> read after that one, too.

I had read the tale before, and I just read it again. I found I really enjoyed the spooky atmosphere of the tale, much as I did before. On the other hand, the ending felt just as disappointing as I remembered, if not moreso. Stevenson seems to feel himself duty bound, as a proper 19th century man of letters, to make sure his weird stories have rational explanations. Here, the "rational explanation" seems to take over almost completely near the end -- it can barely be said that he allows the situation to remain ambiguous.

Looking forward to Stevenson moving to the South Seas and dispensing with such tricks.

Merry Men...

I think he did a superb job of creating setting and mood, and established a lot of thematic tensions (familial duty; self-restraint versus s sort of Dionysian lust for personal gain; etc), and resolved the story very, very laboriously, and a very pedestrian manner.

Inspired first half; laborious and unfocused second half, with the possibility that he was being paid by the word, which is what ultimately motivated him to complete a very interesting, but ill-focused idea for a story.

I'm going to take a bit of a break from Stevenson now.

--Sawfish

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

Sawfish Wrote:
> I'm going to take a bit of a break from Stevenson
> now.

... but you'll miss out on "The Isle of Voices". It's a hoot.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> > I'm going to take a bit of a break from
> Stevenson
> > now.
>
> ... but you'll miss out on "The Isle of Voices".
> It's a hoot.


Intended, or otherwise? :^)

--Sawfish

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

This was my first reading of "The Merry Men." That attention to weather, location, and imaginative atmosphere engages my interest, and it's integral to the theme of contrast between the remote inner Hebrides location, with a tradition of scavenging shipwrecks, and the "alien" culture of the university-educated, urban narrator. (The young woman he wants to marry has also been educated away from her father's western fastness.) The story occurs, I take it, fairly late in the 18th century, just before the extinction of Jacobitism.

The story qualifies a Gothic fiction, in that seeming supernaturalism occurs that is eventually resolved naturalistically, and yet the atmosphere of folklore and all will linger in one's imagination, having been so well developed and because the ending is weird enough on its own terms, a case of fate overtaking the person who'd kept secret his crime, as he fled in terror from a black man.

Why "The Merry Men"? These rock formations are kept in view or in the background of our thoughts as we read, representing that wild locale and the sense of nature as perhaps sentient. I think Stevenson manages to convey both a sense of human smallness in the landscape without actually diminishing, depreciating the human as weird tale writers sometimes try to do.

What further thoughts on "The Merry Men" before we proceed to "The Isle of Voices"?

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This was my first reading of "The Merry Men."
> That attention to weather, location, and
> imaginative atmosphere engages my interest, and
> it's integral to the theme of contrast between the
> remote inner Hebrides location, with a tradition
> of scavenging shipwrecks, and the "alien" culture
> of the university-educated, urban narrator. (The
> young woman he wants to marry has also been
> educated away from her father's western fastness.)
> The story occurs, I take it, fairly late in the
> 18th century, just before the extinction of
> Jacobitism.
>
> The story qualifies a Gothic fiction, in that
> seeming supernaturalism occurs that is eventually
> resolved naturalistically, and yet the atmosphere
> of folklore and all will linger in one's
> imagination, having been so well developed and
> because the ending is weird enough on its own
> terms, a case of fate overtaking the person who'd
> kept secret his crime, as he fled in terror from a
> black man.
>
> Why "The Merry Men"? These rock formations are
> kept in view or in the background of our thoughts
> as we read, representing that wild locale and the
> sense of nature as perhaps sentient. I think
> Stevenson manages to convey both a sense of human
> smallness in the landscape without actually
> diminishing, depreciating the human as weird tale
> writers sometimes try to do.
>
> What further thoughts on "The Merry Men" before we
> proceed to "The Isle of Voices"?

I'm having a strange subjective response to the Stevenson works I've read for this thread.

I think he is a very talented at descriptive sections, but much less so with establishing a relatively complex character--at least at short story length.

His idea of resolution to me seems fairly labored, in that he works hard at manipulating plot elements to come to what is often, in my mind, an anti-climactic resolution that seems drawn out and forced.

He seems to possess the tools to write exception prose, but not the sensibilities. So in a way, he writes like a talented commercial hack.

Compare him to Arthur Conan Doyle or Kipling. Kipling was a tremendous talent who probably did not exercise sufficient control over the volume of his output--wrote too much sentimental and forced material.

Doyle seems like a very competent writer within certain bounds of talent. He seemed aware of those bounds and stuck within them pretty much. Colorful characters with consistent personality attributes.

What Stevenson seems to me to do well is to create a sort of moral tension between the superego and the id. This is what we saw with Uncle Gordon, and it's present as Jekyll and Hyde. He explored the same tension in Body Snatcher.

It is potentially a very powerful theme, if handled well.

--Sawfish

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

I’m not prepared to say a lot about RLS’s achievement as far as literary analysis. I’ve read several of his books and liked them a lot.

(I think I hear coyotes!)

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I’m not prepared to say a lot about RLS’s
> achievement as far as literary analysis. I’ve
> read several of his books and liked them a lot.
>
> (I think I hear coyotes!)


Are you sure it's not The Merry Men? ;^)

--Sawfish

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

I wish they’d kept up a little longer. ....possibly there was just one. We do have them, according to a sheriff ‘s deputy I talked to many months ago. But enough North Dakota wildlife notes from me here.

someone findingDale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wish they’d kept up a little longer.
> ....possibly there was just one. We do have them,
> according to a sheriff ‘s deputy I talked to
> many months ago. But enough North Dakota wildlife
> notes from me here.


Gosh, Dale. It sounds so idyllic in your town,

Not only coyotes, but you had a chatty conversation with a sheriff's deputy.

We have coyotes too, here in close-in PDX. They eat peoples's cats. You see forlorn posters attached to telephone poles, with a picture of Fluffy, or Mr. Tom. Every now and then you read about someone finding an empty cat skin in the neighborhood.

Really, very similar to the homeless population here, now that I come to think of it, the main difference being that the coyotes have the good sense to lie low.

...and the only contact I've ever had with the police or sheriff is report my car as stolen...

--Sawfish

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

“The Isle of Voices” with its extravagant marvels and perils reminded me of Amos Tutuola’s My Life in the Bush of Ghosts, though the Tutuola is more bizarre, and is told in a peculiar English. Has anyone seeing this read it?

I thought the Stevenson was entertaining and showed the author taking up a new literary task, wanting to sound non-European and probably succeeding.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> “The Isle of Voices” with its extravagant
> marvels and perils reminded me of Amos Tutuola’s
> My Life in the Bush of Ghosts, though the Tutuola
> is more bizarre, and is told in a peculiar
> English. Has anyone seeing this read it?
>
> I thought the Stevenson was entertaining and
> showed the author taking up a new literary task,
> wanting to sound non-European and probably
> succeeding.

I'm not familiar with Tutuola, though now I'm curious.

I enjoyed "The Isle of Voices". And after the other stories we've been discussing, I enjoyed its extravagance. No rational explanations here.

The thought crossed my mind that perhaps this story had some influence on Clark Ashton Smith, though I'm not sure I can justify that impression analytically. But CAS did have some weird island tales and weird wizard tales of his own.

Platypus Wrote:

> The thought crossed my mind that perhaps this
> story had some influence on Clark Ashton Smith,
> though I'm not sure I can justify that impression
> analytically. But CAS did have some weird island
> tales and weird wizard tales of his own.


I could see that!

Dale Nelson Wrote:
> I could see that!

Flipping through CAS's stories, the story "Symposium of the Gorgon" strikes me as most similar in tone, and has an analogous episode. Of course, it could be that both stories are independently influenced by The Arabian Nights Entertainments, including the 4th voyage of Sindbad.

Aha! "The Isle of Voices" was published in book form in Island Nights' Entertainments, so RLS consciously alludes to the Arabian Nights' Entertainments. Incidentally we shall have to see if there is interest here at ED in reading RLS's New Arabian Nights, none of the stories in which, I believe, are supernatural, though they influenced some of Arthur Machen's early stories.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Incidentally we shall have to see
> if there is interest here at ED in reading RLS's
> New Arabian Nights, none of the stories in which,
> I believe, are supernatural, though they
> influenced some of Arthur Machen's early stories.

I'm peeking at it now. For the first story "Tbe Suicide Club", it seems the central idea is that of the undercover adventures of a ruler and his deputy, in the style of the various undercover adventures of Haroun al Raschid and his vizier. I have vague recollections of a Machen story about a weird club, but I don't know if that's the point of reference.

“Markheim” is a weird story, as I recall. Shall we read it?

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> “Markheim” is a weird story, as I recall.
> Shall we read it?

Sure. It is basically about a murderer. As in some other of his weird stories, the weird element may be in some sense a manifestation of his own guilty conscience. The weird element is a sort of Shroedinger's devil/angel who, in the aftermath of Markheim's first murder, tempts Markheim into doing the wrong/right thing.

OK. Anyone can post on it right away, naturally, and I'll probably reread the story (after 40 years or so??) soon and post here.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK. Anyone can post on it right away, naturally,
> and I'll probably reread the story (after 40 years
> or so??) soon and post here.

Sorry if I jumped the gun. But I have reread it. And I don't really have much to say. Calling it a "Shroedinger's angel/devil" is just, if you like, one way of saying that I can't make much sense of it. Maybe someone else can.

My idea that he is tormented by his own conscience seems foreshadowed by his reaction to the mirror.

“Markheim” reminded me of Poe till the mysterious visitor appeared. Then I was reminded of Hawthorne, and after a bit, a little of Dickens. The Dickensian feeling came across around the paragraph beginning with Markheim saying “‘I will lay my heart open to you’” — I found myself around this point thinking of A Christmas Carol, and I suppose it’s no accident that RLS sets the story on Christmas Day and has Markheim remembering more innocent times. The visitor has more in common with the Dickens Ghosts of Christmas, perhaps, than with devil, good angel, embodiment of conscience — but I might be making the story too schematic. Anyway I liked it.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
> The
> visitor has more in common with the Dickens Ghosts
> of Christmas, perhaps, than with devil, good
> angel, embodiment of conscience — but I might be
> making the story too schematic.

At the very least, Markheim thinks he is talking to the Devil. The text does not exactly say that, in so many words, but I'd say that the implication is unmistakeable. But it is also fair to guess that the truth (whatever it is) is at the very least, not quite so simple.

Yes, that makes sense.

The logical next story for this thread is "The Bottle Imp" or The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, but I wonder if there'd be interest in the black comedy (no supernatural elements) co-written by RLS & called The Wrong Box?

Someone at Goodreads wrote, "A black comic novel about the last remaining survivors of a tontine - a group life-insurance policy in which the last surviving member stands to receive a fortune. It is a farcical, eccentric and brilliantly written piece of work."

As I recall from a reading many years ago, there was a surprising among of (by today's standards, not mine) mild profanity, which shouldn't have been indulged in. I know that such usage can heighten comic effect, but it should be avoided. Aside from that defect, as I recall I rather enjoyed what one critic -- as I recall -- called a "dreary piece of fooling."

"The Bottle Imp," then, may round out for now the activity on this thread, after the essay I suggest below. I expect to read "Imp" and to post comments here soon, and hope others will too.

With The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, not yet discussed, will we then have noted all of Stevenson's weird fiction in this thread? Does anyone know of any story* that belongs here but has been overlooked so far?

By the way, I expect shortly to finish a reading of Nicholas Rankin's Dead Man's Chest: Travels After Robert Louis Stevenson, a combination of biography of RLS and 1980s travelogue. The author occasionally does a little axe-grinding, but I've liked the book a lot. (For an example of the axe-grinding: he leans on Protestants who thought that leprosy, a feature of Hawaiian life since it was, evidently, brought from China, was caused by sexual misbehavior. Of course they were wrong; Hansen's disease, as it has come to be called, is not a venereal disease. We understand that, but they didn't know what we know.) Rankin is always interesting both about RLS and his own travels. I might look for a second-hand copy of this book.

*There is a rather Lovecraftian-sounding essay, "Pulvis et Umbra" ((Dust and Shadow), that ED folk might like to read. The text is here:

[www.bartleby.com]

That, I think, is what I'll read and comment on shortly -- then "The Bottle Imp."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10 Sep 21 | 11:23AM by Dale Nelson.

This archive.org scan seems to include a prefatory paragraph for "Pulvis et Umbra" that is missing from the source mentioned in my previous message.

[archive.org]

The essay proper begins thus:

-----OF the Kosmos in the last resort, science reports many doubtful things, and all of the appalling. There seems no substance to this solid globe on which we stamp; nothing but symbols and ratios. Symbols and ratios carry us and bring us forth and beat us down; gravity that swings the incommensurable suns and worlds, through space is but a figment varying inversely as the squares of distances; and the suns and worlds themselves, imponderable figures of abstraction, NH3 and H2O. Consideration dares not dwell upon this view; that way madness lies; science carries us into zones of speculation, where there is no habitable city for the mind of man.-----

Cf. the first graf of "The Call of Cthulhu" -- agreed?

RLS continues:

-----We behold space sown with rotatory islands, suns and worlds and the shards and wrecks of systems: some, like the sun, still blazing; some rotting, like the earth; others, like the moon, stable in desolation. All of these we take to be made of something we call matter: a thing which no analysis can help us to conceive; to whose incredible properties no familiarity can reconcile our minds. This stuff, when not purified by the lustration of fire, rots uncleanly into something we call life; seized through all its atoms with a pediculous malady; swelling into tumours that become independent, sometimes even (by an abhorrent prodigy) locomotory; one splitting into millions, millions cohering into one, as the malady proceeds through varying stages. This vital putrescence of the dust, used as we are to it, yet strikes us with occasional disgust, and the profusion of worms in a piece of ancient turf, or the air of a marsh darkened with insects, will sometimes check our breathing so that we aspire for cleaner places. But none is clean: the moving sand is infected with lice; the pure spring, where it bursts out of the mountain, is a mere issue of worms; even in the hard rock the crystal is forming.----

If someone had presented this passage to me and asked me the well-known name of the author, I don't suppose I'd have guessed it. Rankin described this as "cosmic horror" Dead Man's Chest, p. 234). I've read it for the first time while writing this message.

The essay develops and concludes in an un-Lovecraftian direction; not for RLS is HPL's usually comfortable cosmic futility.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 10 Sep 21 | 02:05PM by Dale Nelson.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This archive.org scan seems to include a prefatory
> paragraph for "Pulvis et Umbra" that is missing
> from the source mentioned in my previous message.
>
> [archive.org]
> rich/page/192/mode/2up
>
> The essay proper begins thus:
>
> -----OF the Kosmos in the last resort, science
> reports many doubtful things, and all of the
> appalling. There seems no substance to this solid
> globe on which we stamp; nothing but symbols and
> ratios. Symbols and ratios carry us and bring us
> forth and beat us down; gravity that swings the
> incommensurable suns and worlds, through space is
> but a figment varying inversely as the squares of
> distances; and the suns and worlds themselves,
> imponderable figures of abstraction, NH3 and H2O.
> Consideration dares not dwell upon this view; that
> way madness lies; science carries us into zones of
> speculation, where there is no habitable city for
> the mind of man.-----
>
> Cf. the first graf of "The Call of Cthulhu" --
> agreed?
>
> RLS continues:
>
> -----We behold space sown with rotatory islands,
> suns and worlds and the shards and wrecks of
> systems: some, like the sun, still blazing; some
> rotting, like the earth; others, like the moon,
> stable in desolation. All of these we take to be
> made of something we call matter: a thing which no
> analysis can help us to conceive; to whose
> incredible properties no familiarity can reconcile
> our minds. This stuff, when not purified by the
> lustration of fire, rots uncleanly into something
> we call life; seized through all its atoms with a
> pediculous malady; swelling into tumours that
> become independent, sometimes even (by an
> abhorrent prodigy) locomotory; one splitting into
> millions, millions cohering into one, as the
> malady proceeds through varying stages. This vital
> putrescence of the dust, used as we are to it, yet
> strikes us with occasional disgust, and the
> profusion of worms in a piece of ancient turf, or
> the air of a marsh darkened with insects, will
> sometimes check our breathing so that we aspire
> for cleaner places. But none is clean: the moving
> sand is infected with lice; the pure spring, where
> it bursts out of the mountain, is a mere issue of
> worms; even in the hard rock the crystal is
> forming.----
>
> If someone had presented this passage to me and
> asked me the well-known name of the author, I
> don't suppose I'd have guessed it. Rankin
> described this as "cosmic horror" Dead Man's
> Chest, p. 234). I've read it for the first time
> while writing this message.
>
> The essay develops and concludes in an
> un-Lovecraftian direction; not for RLS is HPL's
> usually comfortable cosmic futility.

This is a profoundly pessimistic, decadent view. What was the intended purpose of the essay, do you think?

--Sawfish

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

I wondered about that, Sawfish. I think RLS probably wanted to make a sort of skeptic's case for a positive outlook for humanity. He wanted to say: OK, fine: let's take it that the universe is "alien" to us and that we and all life are implicated in predation. Let's allow further that human beings commit atrocities and wallow in stupidity and boredom and that much of our religion is unworthy of a thinking person or even a decent person. Even so there is real reason to believe that, in us especially, the universe is moving towards a positive end [rather than towards sheer entropy].

That's roughly what I get from the piece.

I imagine HPL would say RLS was on the right track at first, and that HPL would dismiss the rest as wishful thinking -- at least, that's what HPL would do in typical moods. I think it was important for him to regard himself as the wholly disillusioned man who had a tolerant, though superior, regard for friends who couldn't go that far with him.

But it's mildly interesting to wonder what a discussion between these two might have been like. If Stevenson had lived, he'd have been about 70 when Lovecraft was 30. Lovecraft would have respected RLS's weird writing and his "natural bohemian aristocratic" skinniness, manners, paleness, and ancestry. Give RLS just a little more life so he can get married and possibly he would have thought the RLS-Fanny Osbourne marriage was like his own to Sonia Greene -- skinny literary chap marries a buxom, determined divorcee some years older than himself.

My conclusion is that nobody is able to view life completely objectively. We are all subject to our genes and early upbringing, which affect our perspectives. Down at heart we all think emotionally, defending our own position as best we can. Some have better brains than others, and some have better early conditioning than others to see things more objectively, but there is never complete objectivity.

Individuals with too cuddly upbringing, can often become naïve or smugly self-centered. Individuals with harsh or miserable background (materially or emotionally), either resign, or struggle to come to terms with life; materialistically, intellectually, or spiritually. Most individuals are not idealistic or searching, they simply egoistically settle for making their own life as comfortable as they can. They go by the social codes they have been taught and conditioned with, for good or bad.

No one is exempted from these limitations in objective outlook. Some are better at it than others. And there is certainly no fair equality among humans.

Scientists, and artists like Stevenson and Lovecraft, are searching individuals, but can never reach all the way to complete intellectual integrity. It is not possible within the limitations of our bodies. Ultimately we are all pathetic emotional creatures. To laugh at others (as opposed to with), is the height of small-minded arrogance.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Scientists, and artists like Stevenson and
> Lovecraft, are searching individuals, but can
> never reach all the way to complete intellectual
> integrity. It is not possible within the
> limitations of our bodies. Ultimately we are all
> pathetic emotional creatures.

If one takes into account a spiritual, divine, dimension of ourselves, the view of the equation becomes a little different.

I’ve just wondered if RLS was experimenting with a point of view. Whether he had a consistent metaphysics, I don’t know.

Chesterton wrote a book on RLS, which I haven’t read yet though I was given a copy. GKC also refers to RLS as being an author who helped him in the time of his youthful inner crisis, in the poem that prefaces The Man Who Was Thursday.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My conclusion is that nobody is able to view life
> completely objectively. We are all subject to our
> genes and early upbringing, which affect our
> perspectives. Down at heart we all think
> emotionally, defending our own position as best we
> can. Some have better brains than others, and some
> have better early conditioning than others to see
> things more objectively, but there is never
> complete objectivity.

This is as close to an absolute truth as I am able to imagine. Paradoxically, subjectivity is not possible for a sentient entity, so far as I can see.

But one *strives* for objectivity, except in areas where one is free to please one's own emotions and sensibilities, without regard to social interactions.

>
> Individuals with too cuddly upbringing, can often
> become naïve or smugly self-centered. Individuals
> with harsh or miserable background (materially or
> emotionally), either resign, or struggle to come
> to terms with life; materialistically,

I did not have a harsh life, but my parents did and this leaked into my default worldview.

> intellectually, or spiritually. Most individuals
> are not idealistic or searching, they simply
> egoistically settle for making their own life as
> comfortable as they can. They go by the social
> codes they have been taught and conditioned with,
> for good or bad.

The approach I've evolved to is as much material security as I can accumulate, but my imagination/thoughts are my own free range.

So in many situations you do one thing to secure material benefits, but your actual values are, or can be, unconnected.

>
> No one is exempted from these limitations in
> objective outlook. Some are better at it than
> others. And there is certainly no fair equality
> among humans.
>
> Scientists, and artists like Stevenson and
> Lovecraft, are searching individuals, but can
> never reach all the way to complete intellectual
> integrity.

Like perfection, unachievable, but an excellent and noble goal.

> It is not possible within the
> limitations of our bodies. Ultimately we are all
> pathetic emotional creatures. To laugh at others
> (as opposed to with), is the height of
> small-minded arrogance.

Or, it's whistling in the dark.

--Sawfish

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

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > ... It is not possible within the
> > limitations of our bodies. Ultimately we are all
> > pathetic emotional creatures. To laugh at others
> > (as opposed to with), is the height of
> > small-minded arrogance.
>
> .... Or, it's whistling in the dark.

;D

Thanks for all your remarks.

Sawfish Wrote:

> The approach I've evolved to is as much material
> security as I can accumulate, but my
> imagination/thoughts are my own free range.

I was out for that walk (much of it under branches!) that I mentioned elsewhere today and found myself remembering this remark. And I wonder about it, because it would seem that the accumulation of which you write is future-oriented; so if you are preoccupied with prepping for the future, your imagination is thus occupied; so is it free? Just would welcome your comments on that, though this topic is a digression from Stevenson.

To revert to him & other writers --

My sense is that Stevenson's imagination was largely occupied with the past and present. As regards the present, he was something of a campaigner for the Samoans against imperialists, late in his life. As regards the past, he had an interest in historical knowledge strictly so called (a very early writing of his had to do with an episode in the Scottish Pentland Hills), but of course also in terms of his creative writing. It's safe to say that all of his long imaginative works were historical fictions -- Treasure Island, Kidnapped, its sequel Catriona (aka David Balfour), The Master of Ballantrae, The Black Arrow, the unfinished Weir of Hermiston (which some think could have been his masterpiece). Lesser works such as St Ives (which I haven't read) were also historical in focus, although he did write long fictions set in the present, at least he did so as a collaborator.

The historical past, as well as the fabulous distant past of Atlantis, etc. has been a preoccupation of most weird fiction writers, hasn't it? I won't need to make the case that that is so for Lovecraft and Robert E. Howard, I suppose. Similarly with M. R. James. These men really knew things certain about historical times. They were at least amateurs, and James was a true professional, a world-class scholar in fact. My Sheridan Le Fanu is a bit rusty but I am sure he was interested in writing historical fiction.

So RLS is right in there in company with these authors identified more than he is exclusively with weird fiction.

Meinhold's Amber Witch was actually written as a historical document to hoax people, if I remember rightly! So there's another author in the genre with strong antiquarian or historical interests.

Click here for an antiquarian bookstore in England.

[www.jarndyce.co.uk]

Looks to me like some RLS books are not in all that great of demand:

[www.jarndyce.co.uk]



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 14 Sep 21 | 07:21PM by Dale Nelson.

Ran across this article about UK stamps from around 25 years ago:

[stampaday.wordpress.com]

RLS's Mr. Hyde was included along with Dracula, Frankenstein (as visualized by the Karloff movies), and one more frightening entity. Care to guess what it was before you click on the link? You might feel cheated when you do.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
>
> > The approach I've evolved to is as much
> material
> > security as I can accumulate, but my
> > imagination/thoughts are my own free range.
>
> I was out for that walk (much of it under
> branches!) that I mentioned elsewhere today and
> found myself remembering this remark. And I
> wonder about it, because it would seem that the
> accumulation of which you write is
> future-oriented; so if you are preoccupied with
> prepping for the future, your imagination is thus
> occupied; so is it free? Just would welcome your
> comments on that, though this topic is a
> digression from Stevenson.
Yes, exactly.

For many years I have realized that I do not live in the present. Mostly it is in the future, and on occasion in the past. And think about it: the present is momentary, transitory. I have read of people who are able to actually "live in the moment", and I believe that it's possible, but not for me.

The past is beyond control, so aside for learning or reminiscing, it's got more value than the present--which is so transitory as to be beyond control.

The future is limitless, inchoate. You can attempt to control what will show up in the present, somewhat, and for a very long time I've spent most of my time there. I would not know how to do otherwise.

>
> To revert to him & other writers --
>
> My sense is that Stevenson's imagination was
> largely occupied with the past and present. As
> regards the present, he was something of a
> campaigner for the Samoans against imperialists,
> late in his life. As regards the past, he had an
> interest in historical knowledge strictly so
> called (a very early writing of his had to do with
> an episode in the Scottish Pentland Hills), but of
> course also in terms of his creative writing.
> It's safe to say that all of his long imaginative
> works were historical fictions -- Treasure Island,
> Kidnapped, its sequel Catriona (aka David
> Balfour), The Master of Ballantrae, The Black
> Arrow, the unfinished Weir of Hermiston (which
> some think could have been his masterpiece).
> Lesser works such as St Ives (which I haven't
> read) were also historical in focus, although he
> did write long fictions set in the present, at
> least he did so as a collaborator.
>
> The historical past, as well as the fabulous
> distant past of Atlantis, etc. has been a
> preoccupation of most weird fiction writers,
> hasn't it? I won't need to make the case that
> that is so for Lovecraft and Robert E. Howard, I
> suppose. Similarly with M. R. James. These men
> really knew things certain about historical times.
> They were at least amateurs, and James was a true
> professional, a world-class scholar in fact. My
> Sheridan Le Fanu is a bit rusty but I am sure he
> was interested in writing historical fiction.
>
> So RLS is right in there in company with these
> authors identified more than he is exclusively
> with weird fiction.
>
> Meinhold's Amber Witch was actually written as a
> historical document to hoax people, if I remember
> rightly! So there's another author in the genre
> with strong antiquarian or historical interests.
>
> Click here for an antiquarian bookstore in
> England.
>
> [www.jarndyce.co.uk]
>
> Looks to me like some RLS books are not in all
> that great of demand:
>
> [www.jarndyce.co.uk]
> ock=5&catalog=229&stksearch=go

--Sawfish

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

Sawfish Wrote:

> For many years I have realized that I do not live
> in the present. Mostly it is in the future, and on
> occasion in the past. And think about it: the
> present is momentary, transitory. I have read of
> people who are able to actually "live in the
> moment", and I believe that it's possible, but not
> for me.
>
> The past is beyond control, so aside for learning
> or reminiscing, it's got more value than the
> present--which is so transitory as to be beyond
> control.

Isn't this a situation, though, in which the goalposts constantly move correspondingly farther away as you move towards them?

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
>
> > For many years I have realized that I do not
> live
> > in the present. Mostly it is in the future, and
> on
> > occasion in the past. And think about it: the
> > present is momentary, transitory. I have read
> of
> > people who are able to actually "live in the
> > moment", and I believe that it's possible, but
> not
> > for me.
> >
> > The past is beyond control, so aside for
> learning
> > or reminiscing, it's got more value than the
> > present--which is so transitory as to be beyond
> > control.
>
> Isn't this a situation, though, in which the
> goalposts constantly move correspondingly farther
> away as you move towards them?

We are miles apart on this one, maybe...

For me, it's not how it works. It would work if you had a concrete life goal or goals, but if the overall goal is something like "...and I want everything in my life that's arguably under my control to some significant degree to be *better*, by my own evaluation, than it is today," you never expect to complete your final goal.

You have interim, finite, more precise goals that you adopt as you recognize opportunities as they arise.

So in a sense, you intentionally move all of your goalpost, except for the vague, overriding one, which is open-ended.

--Sawfish

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

DN wrote:

> > Isn't this a situation, though, in which the
> > goalposts constantly move correspondingly
> farther
> > away as you move towards them?


Sawfish Wrote:


> We are miles apart on this one, maybe...
> > For me, it's not how it works. It would work if
> you had a concrete life goal or goals, but if the
> overall goal is something like "...and I want
> everything in my life that's arguably under my
> control to some significant degree to be *better*,
> by my own evaluation, than it is today," you never
> expect to complete your final goal.
>
> You have interim, finite, more precise goals that
> you adopt as you recognize opportunities as they
> arise.
>
> So in a sense, you intentionally move all of your
> goalpost, except for the vague, overriding one,
> which is open-ended.

It had sounded to me like you were saying you were preoccupied with preparing for the future; and, I suppose if one is preoccupied with "control," a word you used, then one would indeed be thinking about the possible exigencies of tomorrow, the possible pleasures of tomorrow, and so on.

Of course "tomorrow" never comes. It's 24 hours away at midnight of a new day, fewer hours at other times, but it's always yet to be. And I don't really know what lies ahead for me. I could have a stroke or get hit by a car or whatever.

Of course I'm not saying "La la la la la la, live for today, and don't worry 'bout tomorrow, hey," like the Sixties song. Prudence is one of the virtues -- as is the courage that may help us if our future turns into a painful present...

Probably we aren't so far apart on this.