Jo Jo Lapin X:

Quote:

it should be noted that Aickman had very little to say on the issue of the supernatural outside of fiction

I thought that, in the introductions to his Fontana collections, Aickman came down quite heavily in favor of open-mindedness toward the supernatural in ordinary life, and not just in fiction. As I recall, Joshi--surprise, surprise--rakes Aickman over the coals for precisely that view in his article about Aickman in, I believe, Studies in Weird Fiction. I don't have any of that material handy for reference, though, so perhaps someone who does can confirm or disconfirm.


English Assassin:

I agree with you almost entirely, and especially apropos of the anthropocentrism of religion. I am sure that CAS would, as well, and that is the point of the balance contained in his "all science, all religion" statement.

If I seem to show more ire to Scientism than I do to organized religion, then it's because, rightly or wrongly, I see it as the greater evil among well-educated individuals, at the moment. It is not because I have any greater animus toward Scientism than I do towards any other reductive or totalizing explanation of what we call "reality"--of which religion is certainly a pernicious example.


The Hole of the Pit:

I recall hearing about the Oleander edition, but forgot about it, so the reminder is appreciated. I'd like to know more about the publisher, but it looks reputable. I was afraid that Ross's work was going to be consigned either to near-complete oblivion or, at best, to print-on-demand Hell.

What I'd really like to see is for someone to research Ross/Ropes and his life and work, and to write a detailed critical introduction to an edition of his work. Maybe that exists in the Oleander edition, but I could not tell.

And that reminds me: Has a critical biography of M.R. James ever been published? If not--and with all due respect to CAS's views about "hyenas"--then there needs to be.

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought that, in the introductions to his
> Fontana collections, Aickman came down quite
> heavily in favor of open-mindedness toward the
> supernatural in ordinary life, and not just in
> fiction.

I have not read his Fontana introductions. But I just reread the essay he wrote upon receiving a World Fantasy Award, the memory of which I had suppressed for reasons that are obvious in retrospect. I have to take back what I said earlier; even if he never said another word on the topic, that short piece in itself is clearly enough. It is a good thing you have not read it---we would never hear the end of it! It is, in essence, a particularly crazy rant against modernity and science.

Quote:

It is a good thing you have not read it---we would never hear the end of it!

I am getting a bad rap here, I think. You might want to (re-?)read, at a minimum, what I wrote in reply to English Assassin, above. Anyone here who thinks that I am "against" science (as opposed to Scientism, which is something different), or that I would rush to endorse anything anyone said against science or modernity, hasn't really been paying attention.

Otherwise, thanks for the confirmation. I was pretty sure, but not positive, that I was recalling Aickman's views correctly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 3 Dec 11 | 12:35PM by Absquatch.

Trust me, you would love the piece in question!

Well, of course I'd have to see the piece, to judge, If you think that it's a "crazy rant", though, then there's a good chance that I might indeed love it.

Edit:

For those who are interested, here are some quotations from Aickman's essays on this subject:

Robert Aickman: An Introduction.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 3 Dec 11 | 12:41PM by Absquatch.

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> English Assassin:
>
> I agree with you almost entirely, and especially
> apropos of the anthropocentrism of religion. I am
> sure that CAS would, as well, and that is the
> point of the balance contained in his "all
> science, all religion" statement.
>
> If I seem to show more ire to Scientism than I do
> to organized religion, then it's because, rightly
> or wrongly, I see it as the greater evil among
> well-educated individuals, at the moment. It is
> not because I have any greater animus toward
> Scientism than I do towards any other reductive or
> totalizing explanation of what we call
> "reality"--of which religion is certainly a
> pernicious example.

To some extent I agree with you, there is a certain smugness in bourgeois liberal society re: the wonders of rationalism,etc... However I'd argue that while prevalent in polite society, it doesn't seem to rule supreme in the political discourse in American nor among the straw munching rednecks... I am of course observing this from a distance, so I might be wrong... But I doubt a prospective political representative would get very far on a secular ticket...

The situation is slightly different in the UK (thank, fuck) as the British working classes have a healthy disregard for authority, sacred or otherwise, and find our frocked clergy deservedly ridiculous. However, with the current rapid change in the UK's demographics it would be naive to assume that this situation is going to persist indefinitely. And with that in mind I find myself leaning towards the ultimately doomed Apollonian stance of the Dawkins camp against the Dionysian hoards, as I don't believe any greater personal, aesthetic or ethical liberty (as opposed to liberalism) will be found in the new tide of barbarian dogma. I only see hate and intolerance there. Possibly if I was more irritated by sciencism than religion then I'd lean closer to your view,but I genuinely see less harm to it.

Further off-topic: I actually have some, albeit casual, interest in the supernatural and have been know to attend talks, walks and meetings on folklore topics where the majority are at least open minded (if not darn right pagan) and I genuinely prefer their company to the righteous company found in the groups composed of the sceptical equivalent. There's also a greater mix of view-points. However, I always find myself having to bite my tongue at such gatherings at the lack of critical enquiry amongst the majority. I'm only interested in scepticism where some level of exploitation or harm is caused (faith healers and the ilk). If someone wants to believe in ghosts then fair dues to them. I'm happy to debate it, to debate the evidence (if they feel the need to present any), but I'm no longer interested in changing anyone's mind.


> The Hole of the Pit:
>
> I recall hearing about the Oleander edition, but
> forgot about it, so the reminder is appreciated.
> I'd like to know more about the publisher, but it
> looks reputable. I was afraid that Ross's work was
> going to be consigned either to near-complete
> oblivion or, at best, to print-on-demand Hell.
>
> What I'd really like to see is for someone to
> research Ross/Ropes and his life and work, and to
> write a detailed critical introduction to an
> edition of his work. Maybe that exists in the
> Oleander edition, but I could not tell.

I'm sure i read somewhere that this edition was annotated, but I don't see any reference to it on the Oleander site, so I might have my wires crossed. Possibly worth getting for the extra tale tho... But I have too many things on my wish list at the moment of higher priority. But if someone here has read it, I'd love to hear their opinion on it.

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I thought that, in the introductions to his
> Fontana collections, Aickman came down quite
> heavily in favor of open-mindedness toward the
> supernatural in ordinary life, and not just in
> fiction. As I recall, Joshi--surprise,
> surprise--rakes Aickman over the coals for
> precisely that view in his article about Aickman
> in, I believe, Studies in Weird Fiction. I don't
> have any of that material handy for reference,
> though, so perhaps someone who does can confirm or
> disconfirm.

Actually, back to Joshi bashing for a bit (it's long over due and it's fun) I have to say I'm finding his endless political slant on supernatural fiction and Lovecraft in particular fucking tedious. I've not read this Aickman piece, but I can imagine it. Why does Aickman's open mindedness bother him? While Lovecraft and Joshi's materialism overlap in many areas, the application of their secularism is very dissimilar. I feel it would do little harm to postpone all critical analysis of Lovecraft for 25 years and let Lovecraft's popularity (or lack of) evolve with less interference from him. He has just taken over the self-elected mantle of control that he himself was so critical of Derleth doing.

I'm also less than convinced that Joshi is the right man to oversee the potential Penguin CAS collection (that probably won't actually happen). Joshi has hardly been the biggest singer of CAS' praises re his fiction, so why is he particularly qualified to construct what would surely be considered by the wider reading public as the definitive CAS fiction selection... From what I've seen of his Machen Penguin collection (only online sources, if yet to flick through a hard copy to double check, so if I'm wrong - forgive me), he's omitted to include 'The Great God Pan' from its contents... Surely this is a massive oversight?! Even if he doesn't rate it (it's hit and miss, I admit that, but so is Machen) it surely deserves its place. Maybe there's contractual reasons for its omission, however he is on record as not liking the tale, so it seems like he's just imposing his own very peculiar view on the genre again.

Rant over...

Fundamentalisms:

The real enemy, I suppose, is inevitably going to be a matter of perception.

To my mind, Scientism is a much faster-moving target, and one that has far more intellectual prestige behind it, but fundamentalism and the rest are a danger, as well. Fundamentalists, however, are less influential in the U.S. than is commonly believed, at least, as a matter of national politics. The usual Republican strategy follows that of Ronald Reagan: Pay lip service to their views during the campaign, throw them a bone here and there once you are elected, and then largely ignore them. On the other hand, Rightist populism is on the rise here, so today matters may be different.

In sum, though, my perspective is neither-neither: Neither Scientism nor conventional religion.


Oleander Press:

That would be great news, if that edition of Ross/Ropes were annotated. It's much less expensive for you folks in the UK, so I hope that one of you will grab it soon and report back on the contents.


Joshi:

As you likely know, you are preaching to the choir with me, apropos of Joshi. To the following statement, in particular, I would add an "amen":

Quote:

He has just taken over the self-elected mantle of control that he himself was so critical of Derleth doing.

I would like to see an end to agenda-driven criticism, period, if that is possible (and it may not be). Joshi has done some good work in the field, but also some very mediocre-to-bad work. I can understand his stepping up to fill a void, but it's time for others to do so. Few disagree (although some do) that another editor ought to have tackled the Penguin M.R. James and Machen volumes. In the case of CAS, Scott Connors and Ron Hilger ought to do the Penguin CAS series, if it ever comes to fruition.

Without meaning to drag the conversation off on a tangent, a couple of points should be noted concerning Joshi and his involvement in such matters:

1) His involvement with the CAS volume, as I understand it, is largely because he has been at the helm of several things released by Penguin; hence he has a history of working with them and so slightly more chance of getting the Smith into print... though I think that chance is quite slender, as Joshi has said that they only went with the Machen once del Toro opted to write his piece for the volume. If such a volume appears, I would agree that those who are more knowledgeable about Smith should be the main forces behind it, but the realities of publishing mean that STJ is in at least a fractionally better position to get the thing into print through this house.

2) Though his own writings can be dogmatic and a bit blinkered (certainly biased in some respects), when it comes to the work of others, he encourages a variety of views. He may argue his corner in private correspondence with you (this is something he used to do, but I'm no sure he has the time these days), but he also always urges those with even a quite different view of Lovecraft to follow through on their research, and (so long as it is solidly written) is willing to publish it, no matter how much he disagrees with the author's conclusions or stance... and he seldom brought his disagreements into play with such publication, save with specific figures such as Donald Burleson, also giving them space for rebuttal at the same time. For all that I understand Derleth could be quite generous and kind as a mentor, this is not something he was ever able or willing to do. If something conflicted with his views on HPL, he tended to bully them into silence (or at least would attempt to do so); not simply disagree and debate them, but try to shut them down. I've never seen this from Joshi, and I think this difference deserves recognition.

On the original intent of the thread... I'm not too sure that de la Mare, and certainly not James, should be classed as "less familiar", given their place in the field and the fact that they are included in any number of anthologies, but perhaps I use this term a bit differently than some others here. Not that I don't wish to see them discussed -- the more, the better -- but I'm not sure this is quite the right place, and perhaps (this is only a suggestion, not a plea for altering the course of the thread) a focus on those who are genuinely less well known might be helpful here....

Thank you all for your helpful inputs on my original questions on Aickman.

Walter de la Mare is a writer I have been trying to put off to limit the mass of reading matter I already have. But his name keeps popping up everywhere.

Hmm... Yes, Aickman and de la Mare are two writers I must try. I just reserved an old de la Mare volume at my library, The Connoisseur and Other Stories. It includes the story "All-Hallows", which CAS was head over heels enthusiastic about.

I don't think you will be disappointed. De la Mare is a writer to be savored and revisited with increasing, rather than diminishing, delight.

To which I would add that I think placing de la Mare within the "lesser known" category is not inappropriate, today. Once upon a time, de la Mare's reputation shone brightly, but since mid-century, it has been in free fall, except among a small coterie of connoisseurs.

At his best, de la Mare is superbly atmospheric, poetic, and allusive, with just the right blend of the vague and the explicit. At his worst, which isn't often, he spends a bit more time in the "human aquarium" than I would like, and his inordinate fondness for the "wrong" James, namely Henry, shows a little too much. "All Hallows" may be his masterpiece among his weird tales.

Hi Absquatch
I can recommend "M.R.James, an Informal Portrait," by Michael Cox (Oxford University Press 1983) although it deals with James generally as opposed to his work. Well worth reading for all that.

asshurbanipal:

Thanks very much for the recommendation. I had forgotten about this particular study of M. R. James. Cox's edition of James's tales is the best selection available, in my view, and his introduction and notes are quite good. So, even if this is not an in-depth biography or bio-critical study, I have no doubt that it is worthwhile.

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To which I would add that I think placing de la
> Mare within the "lesser known" category is not
> inappropriate, today. Once upon a time, de la
> Mare's reputation shone brightly, but since
> mid-century, it has been in free fall, except
> among a small coterie of connoisseurs.

Perhaps you are right in this; though, if so, it seems to me a sad commentary on how little lovers of the fantastic are able to appreciate one of its great luminaries....

As for your assessment of de la Mare's works... I would entirely agree.

For those interested (if it hasn't been mentioned before) there is a three-volume set of his short works edited and published by Giles de la Mare covering, respectively: 1895-1926; 1927-1956; and his short stories for children....

>
> At his best, de la Mare is superbly atmospheric,
> poetic, and allusive, with just the right blend of
> the vague and the explicit. At his worst, which
> isn't often, he spends a bit more time in the
> "human aquarium" than I would like, and his
> inordinate fondness for the "wrong" James, namely
> Henry, shows a little too much. "All Hallows" may
> be his masterpiece among his weird tales.