While reading THE TERROR by Arthur Machen, it occurred to me that perhaps the mystery is never actually solved. The theory that is offered at the end seems no more a sufficient and complete explanation, than those theories offered in the beginning and middle. And the final revelations, from the notebook found in the farm house, don't actually in any unambiguous way support the final theory.

Are we intended to take the final solution at face value?

Intentionally indeterminate? Never reread it, but I will now that you mention it. Just read "The Tree of Life" from The Children of the Pool (1936). Machen's 1890s Notebook is available thru coldtunnagebooks.com

jkh

I have not read "The Tree of Life" yet. Worth a read?

Back to THE TERROR. It takes place in Meirion, which is the same fictional (or pseudonymous) Welsh countryside as "Change" (1936), in which it is evidently haunted by Little People.

In THE TERROR, Little People are in fact proposed as an explanation for at least one of the deaths. But the explanation comes from a superstitious local, and so is ignored. Two of the victims simply disappear, and their bodies are never found. Both are young girls. The doctor says, at one point, that he has heard of, but not examined, cases of kindly sheepdogs turning vicious and savaging children. One wonders, were they really children that were attacked? The only dog attack we see is that of poor Tiger the Sheepdog, and he does no more than tear at people's clothes in a possible attempt to get them to pay attention to coming danger.

Am I thinking too hard about this?

Possibly. I have to accept the explanation proferred at the end, but it may not account for all the violence, so your observations are well to consider.

jkh

Kipling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Possibly. I have to accept the explanation
> proferred at the end, but it may not account for
> all the violence, so your observations are well to
> consider.

The various theories may not be 100% incompatible. People living underground (supposedly Germans) IS one of the theories proposed. The Z-ray theory is indistinguishable from sorcery for all practical purposes, and is not unconnected to the idea of fauna turning violent. And as for nature turning against man: Fauns, Satyrs, Nature Spirits, the God Pan, and Little People are not unconnected in Machen's mythology, as established in other tales.

Kipling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just read "The
> Tree of Life" from The Children of the Pool
> (1936).

I just read this one, and rather liked it. I guess it does not count as one of his weird tales, since it there are no supernatural elements, or at least, the fantastic element is explained away.

My ears pricked up a bit at the description of Teilo's olive-skinned mother with a vaguely oriental cast of feature. When Machen gives such descriptions, he is usually hinting at some kind of faerie blood (fauns, little people, etc.). Helen from "The Great God Pan" is the most notable example, but not the only one.

It is also interesting to compare THE TERROR (1916) to "Out of the Earth" (1923). Both take place in a similar seaside Welsh community (possibly the same community, since the name provided is hinted to be fictitious in both cases). "Out of the Earth" also mentions mysterious tragedies ... a child being impaled on a stake, and a child being lured over a cliff, and the latter, at least, closely parallels one or two of the mysterious tragedies in THE TERROR.

Here's the explanation offered at the end of "Out of the Earth".

"These little people of the earth rise up and rejoice in these times of ours. For they are glad, as the Welshman said, when they know that men follow their ways."

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kipling Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Just read "The
> > Tree of Life" from The Children of the Pool
> > (1936).
>
> I just read this one, and rather liked it. I
> guess it does not count as one of his weird tales,
> since it there are no supernatural elements, or at
> least, the fantastic element is explained away.
>
> My ears pricked up a bit at the description of
> Teilo's olive-skinned mother with a vaguely
> oriental cast of feature. When Machen gives such
> descriptions, he is usually hinting at some kind
> of faerie blood (fauns, little people, etc.).
> Helen from "The Great God Pan" is the most notable
> example, but not the only one.


That's a very good point, Platypus. I too was puzzled by the description of Teilo's mother. The suggestion of hidden and determinative influences is pervasive in much of Machen's work and is conducive to his unifying aesthetic, as formulated in Heiroglyphics and many shorter non-fiction pieces. His journalistic approach in discussing ordinary experiences and filtering them through his often fervid imagination is doubly unifying. It's kind of ridiculous for a mediocre critic like Joshi to opine that Machen wrote "too much", or that his later story collections did nothing to enhance his "reputation as a horror writer", or worse, to advise what we should read versus what we shouldn't bother reading of Machen. Especially since Lovecraft owed more to Machen's influence than he did to Poe's, both of them being better authors than Lovecraft. Thanks for the insights!

jkh

After offering an olive branch of compliments on "The Terror", I suppose
for its influence on H.P. Lovecraft's "The Colour Out of Space", based on how often Joshi inserts Lovecraft's name into his introduction to The White People and other stories, he begins his final paragraph with this gem of critical acumen: "The subsequent literary career of Arthur Machen is a slow decline into harmless verbosity" (xii). To back up this harmlessly inaccurate generalisation, he lumps The Children of the Pool, a book well up to Machen's highest standard of achievement, with the less impressive collection entitled The Cosy Room and other stories, referring to both as simply "undistinguished". This was an old trick of his, trying to kill two birds with one stone, or four birds with one stone in the case of Clark Ashton Smith, another author whose superiority to Lovecraft upsets his intellectual equilibrium. His old and
obscure review of The Abominations of Yondo tritely implied that the three previous Arkham House collections of Smith's stories must also be "second-rate" pulp fiction like the one he had at hand, an assessment he termed a "brutal fact" that can never be gainsayed.

jkh

Joshi's opinions are just words to me most of the time. Usually I have no idea where he is coming from, not even enough to agree or disagree. When he makes factual claims, on a topic within my knowledge, he is often dead wrong. Sometimes I suspect that Joshi does not actually like weird horror, and has somehow fallen into the odd position of being touted as an expert in a genre he does not actually enjoy or appreciate. He really likes Blackwood, or says he does, and singles out INCREDIBLE ADVENTURES for the highest praise possible. I like some of Blackwood's stories too, but the stories in INCREDIBLE ADVENTURES made so little impression on me that I cannot even disagree coherently. I suppose I can understand his having little use for Machen, since Machen is a bit of a mystic (if that's the right word), and Joshi a materialist.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 18 Mar 22 | 11:06AM by Platypus.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Joshi's opinions are just words to me most of the
> time. Usually I have no idea where he is coming
> from, not even enough to agree or disagree. When
> he makes factual claims, on a topic within my
> knowledge, he is often dead wrong. Sometimes I
> suspect that Joshi does not actually like weird
> horror, and has somehow fallen into the odd
> position of being touted as an expert in a genre
> he does not actually enjoy or appreciate. He
> really likes Blackwood, or says he does, and
> singles out INCREDIBLE ADVENTURES for the highest
> praise possible. I like some of Blackwood's
> stories too, but the stories in INCREDIBLE
> ADVENTURES made so little impression on me that I
> cannot even disagree coherently. I suppose I can
> understand his having little use for Machen, since
> Machen is a bit of a mystic (if that's the right
> word), and Joshi a materialist.

I think you're right about Joshi not liking the supernatural or weird horror in fiction. He ridiculed Lovecraft's story "In the Vault" for the sole reason that the idea of a reanimated corpse taking revenge on Birch, the village undertaker, for chopping his feet off was hackneyed, I guess. No critical appraisal of a very well written story, with a fine sense of realism, just a crude expression of distaste for the revenge motif and the supernatural. He came around to an appreciation of Smith later, grudgingly, but has no respect for Robert E. Howard, to further support your view.
Oddly enough, Joshi never delivered a definitively accurate edition of Lovecraft, altering HPL's verb choices and other stylistic preferences to suit himself. He seems rather close-minded and overbearing as a critic in my opinion.

jkh

Kipling Wrote:
> He
> ridiculed Lovecraft's story "In the Vault" for the
> sole reason that the idea of a reanimated corpse
> taking revenge on Birch, the village undertaker,
> for chopping his feet off was hackneyed, I guess.
> No critical appraisal of a very well written
> story, with a fine sense of realism, just a crude
> expression of distaste for the revenge motif and
> the supernatural.

He also dislikes "The Dreams in the Witch House". He cannot forgive that Gilman defeats Keziah with the aid of a crucifix. I think that's the big one, but he buttresses it with few other complaints that are IMHO just silly.

The plot of "In the Vault" hinges on that rarity in Lovecraft, well-rounded characterization. Derleth may have chosen it to lead off the first Lovecraft collection for that reason, and for its background detail of New England burial practices, researched by Faye Ringel (sp.?) for an article about the story.

jkh

It is been many years since I read THE TERROR. What a great story, I must read it again one of these days.

Kipling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The plot of "In the Vault" hinges on that rarity
> in Lovecraft, well-rounded characterization.
> Derleth may have chosen it to lead off the first
> Lovecraft collection for that reason, and for its
> background detail of New England burial practices,
> researched by Faye Ringel (sp.?) for an article
> about the story.

The obtuseness of the protagonist has a distancing effect, which blunts some of the story's impact. His obtuseness is not really a flaw, though. It is an inherent feature of the story, without which it would be a different story. I like the story, as it is, well enough. But for whatever reason, it is nowhere near the top of my list of favorites.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kipling Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -
> The obtuseness of the protagonist has a distancing
> effect, which blunts some of the story's impact.
> His obtuseness is not really a flaw, though. It
> is an inherent feature of the story, without which
> it would be a different story. I like the story,
> as it is, well enough. But for whatever reason,
> it is nowhere near the top of my list of
> favorites. I is near the top for me, along with "The Strange High House in the Mist". In both there is genuine human interest, but then, Joshi did go so far as to say that characterization is a "detrimental" to the cosmic approach (materialism). I imagine Lovecraft, were he alive today, might be nonplussed by the fossil record and the scientific implications of the 2001 mapping of human DNA, to say nothing of the cosmological discoveries of fine-tuning in the origin of the universe. He may even have discarded his materialism.

jkh

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kipling Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -
> The obtuseness of the protagonist has a distancing
> effect, which blunts some of the story's impact.
> His obtuseness is not really a flaw, though. It
> is an inherent feature of the story, without which
> it would be a different story. I like the story,
> as it is, well enough. But for whatever reason,
> it is nowhere near the top of my list of
> favorites. It is near the top for me, along with "The Strange High House in the Mist". In both there is a closer approach to characterization, but then, Joshi did go so far as to say that characterization is "detrimental" to the cosmic approach (materialism)! I imagine Lovecraft, were he alive today, might be nonplussed by the fossil record and the scientific implications of the 2001 mapping of human DNA, to say nothing of the cosmological discoveries of fine-tuning in the origin of the universe. He may even have discarded his materialism. Likely not.

jkh

Kipling Wrote:
> It is
> near the top for me, along with "The Strange High
> House in the Mist".

A good story. Not-quite horror. I'm probably more of an HPL fan than you are, so I like most of his stories, without their necessarily being favorites.

> In both there is a closer
> approach to characterization, but then, Joshi did
> go so far as to say that characterization is
> "detrimental" to the cosmic approach
> (materialism)!

I don't necessarily disagree, but since I'm not a materialist, I don't particularly care either. Materialism is arguably inconsistent with all sorts of things, including, arguably, human consciousness. If materialism proves that the characters don't matter, then perhaps it also proves that the reader does not matter, nor the writer, nor the critic. I appreciate "cosmicism" in HPL's work as a sense of awe and humility in the face of the scope of creation. And if HPL's gods and demons are bigger and scarier than puny mankind, then so was Morgoth, Sauron and Ungoliant in the works of JRR Tolkien.

Matters of taste being what they are, anyone is free to dislike HPL, or particular works of his. It is when Joshi gives specific reasons, that he generally makes no sense to me, though materialist ideology seems to play a major role in his preferences. Here are a few of his criticisms, in the form of questions, of DREAMS IN THE WITCH HOUSE, together with my responses:

"What is the significance of the Old Ones in the story?"

He means the star-head aliens. They are aliens. An example of the sort of creatures you can encounter when you can cross inconceivable vistas of space by magic. Maybe they are demons, or maybe they are extraterrestrial sorcerers -- alien equivalents of Keziah. I'm not sure why Joshi would expect to know more. Given the premises of cosmicism, Gilman would not expect to fully understand everything he sees, when he receives chance glimpses of vistas beyond his comprehension.

"To what purpose is the baby kidnapped and sacrificed?"

What would one expect from an evil quasi-pagan witch-cult, if not human sacrifice? Joshi seems to have trouble with the idea that the behavior of the evil demon-worshiping cultists has any religious aspect to it. He wants a lecture of how magic isn't real, and is really just alien science. Because ideology. But even if alien science can look like magic, why should it not look that way to Keziah or any other human cultist?

"How can Lovecraft the atheist allow Keziah to be frightened off by the sight of a crucifix?"

Because he is writing fiction; and, at the moment, his Muse is not in the mood for militant atheism. Perhaps HPL felt that the mood of horror would be undercut if Gilman were to succeed entirely by his own resources, so he hints at the intervention of some higher power. Nor is this the first and only time in HPL's fiction that he has resorted to such devices. If Joshi does not like it, I'm sure he can rationalize it away. Perhaps the tin crucifix, blessed by the good Father Iwanicki, bears a resemblance to the Elder Sign.

"Why does Nyarlathotep appear in the conventional figure of the Black Man?"

Because he does. Joshi seems to hate this, perhaps because it reminds him of Christian-themed medieval lore about Sabbath witches. But this is beside the point. Nyarlathotep is HPL's version of Satan - a demon sufficiently relatable to human beings that it is capable of conversing with them, tempting them, and corrupting them. Nyarlathotep is a figure from an actual nightmare that HPL had.

"In the final confrontation with Keziah, what is the purpose of the abyss aside from providing a convenient place down which to kick Brown Jenkin?"

It is the recess in which Keziah deposits the bones (and bodies?) of all the children she has sacrificed over the years. It also may be Brown Jenkin's lair, since it is where Brown Jenkin's body is found after some building rubble falls on him and kills him. This is a weird question. Did Joshi not read the story? Is he worried that it represents Hell?

"How does Brown Jenkin subsequently emerge from the abyss to eat out Gilman's heart?"

Can rats not climb? Can they not tunnel? He emerged from that recess before. Why should he not do it again after he recovers from being kicked?