Kyngatin: I don't entirely agree with your objections (few though they are) with "The Beckoning Fair One"... but I think this may be very much a matter of taste. At any rate, I can see where you're coming from, and I think that, overall, you've done the story justice. Personally, I am in the camp which feels this may be the "perfect" ghost story; certainly one of the best ever written (along with, for instance, some of de la Mare's) for suggesting the presence of the unreal, rather than overtly involving it, as, say, James was wont to do. (No objection to James here; simply that, for all his subtleties in many ways, he still tended to make his ghosts concrete, rather than elusive, as it were.)

I would also be very interested in seeing a list of the writers you mention; that's quite a number -- though the Victorians and Edwardians certainly set a very high standard for spectral tales, to be sure.

On the Clarke: I hope you enjoy it. It has been a VERY long time for me, but as I recall, that is certainly a fine one to begin with....

jdworth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> (No objection to James
> here; simply that, for all his subtleties in many
> ways, he still tended to make his ghosts concrete,
> rather than elusive, as it were.)
>
> I would also be very interested in seeing a list
> of the writers you mention; that's quite a number
> --


Those "hairy apparitions" aren't very ghostly, are they? In some ways James tangents into horror fiction. "The Treasure of Abbot Thomas" even feels Lovecraftian. How ever one wants to categorize him, he was an undisputable master at what he did.


If I can judge by "The Beckoning Fair One" alone (which I probably can not!), three writers immediately coming to mind, I think Sheridan Le Fanu, M. R. James, and Walter de la Mare were greater artists than Oliver Onions. They have more idiosyncracy and colour. Onions's voice, compared, sounds generic, neutral. Still, I enjoyed the story. It was like reading a very good documentary of an actual event. And he sparkled occasionally with captivating wisdom, which makes me want to return to his work.


Here is the list. A few are more famous than others. But I have not read any ghost stories by them before.

Alan, A.J.
Ambrose, Eric
Bacon, Gertrude
Baring, Maurice
Beerbohm, Sir Max
Betjeman, John
Besant, Sir Walter
Bierce, Ambrose
Blum, Richard
Bowen , Elizabeth
Bowen, Marjorie
Brennan, Joseph Payne
Bridge, Ann
Bullett, Gerald
Bulwer-Lytton (Lord)
Christie, Agatha
Collins, William Wilkie
Coppard, A.E.
Cross, John Keir
Cram, Ralph Adams
Doyle, Sir Arthur Conan
Ellis, A.E.
Gaskell, Elizabeth
Gerhardi, William
Grubb, Davis
Hichens, Robert
Irving, Washington
Jacobs, W.W.
Jerome, Jerome K.
Landon, Perceval
Lawrence, D.H.
MacCarthy, Desmond
MacDiarmid, Hugh
Marsh, Joyce
Maugham, W. Somerset
Metcalfe, John
Middleton, Richard
Morrow, W.C.
Nabokov, Vladimir
Nesbit, Edith
Noyes, Alfred
Oliphant, Margaret
O'Sullivan, Vincent
Pain, Barry
Pushkin, Alexander
Quiller-Couch, Sir Arthur
Rice, James
Riddell, Charlotte Elizabeth
Saki (H.H. Monroe)
Smith, Lady Eleanor
Turgenev, Ivan
Wakefield, H.R.
Walpole, Hugh
Walter, Elizabeth
Wharton, Edith
Wilde, Oscar

jdworth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kyngatin: ... At any rate, I can
> see where you're coming from,...

Where am I coming from?

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jdworth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Kyngatin: ... At any rate, I can
> > see where you're coming from,...
>
> Where am I coming from?

Duluth, I would imagine.... *ahem* In other words, I can to some degree agree with your perspective, or at least sympathize with it, that Onions (at least here) tends toward the "stereotypical" idea of the Edwardian ghostly tale, rather than having something strikingly original as his subject matter. (At least, that's how I read your comments.)

I would also agree that he isn't quite in the same class as Le Fanu (of whom I am very fond), James, or de la Mare (at his best, anyway), but I wouldn't put him much below it, myself; and in fact I think at times the difference is almost nonexistent.

Speaking of Le Fanu... have you read any of his novels? Few of them can be said to be truly weird, but several of them border on it, some quite closely, in fact; particularly Uncle Silas and Wylder's Hand (as well as portions of The House by the Churchyard). I very much like the hints of the demonic (very much like the monkey of "Green Tea") in the titular character of Uncle Silas.... But, like Wilkie Collins, the hints of the supernatural in his novels are at times almost too subtle to be seen.....

As for that list... that's an impressive list you've got there. There are some on there I've not read at all, either; others of whom I've read a little; and some of whose work I have read a considerable amount. Bierce, for instance: a few months ago I went through the entirety of his fiction, which is rather uneven; at his best, he is very good indeed; at his worst, he has points of interest, but such works seem rather pointless. Like James, his horrors tend (generally) to be rather concrete, and he often has a rather oblique approach, but more often than not this works in his favor.

By the way... what are you going to be reading by Bulwer? I am aware, of course, of Zanoni, A Strange Story, and "The Haunted and the Haunters; or, the House and the Brain" (of which last I suggest you locate a copy with the complete text, as most editions delete the final quarter of the original story), but to be honest, I am unaware of any other weird works by him -- though I have on my shelves eight volumes out of a set of his complete works, from about the mid-19th-century....

jdworth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Speaking of Le Fanu... have you read any of his
> novels?
>
> By the way... what are you going to be reading by
> Bulwer?


I was on the brink of buying The House by the Churchyard, to experience the 1700s settings, but then decided no I can't buy every book, and I don't have the time to read them all. The book has received some good reviews. But is not primarily supernatural, and so not first priority for me. I have never felt attracted to getting Uncle Silas, it seems too depressing.

Those authors on my list are just from anthologies, one story per each. I have no intention of pursuing them further. But who knows - a new discovery may turn into an obsession. The Bulwer story is "The Haunted and the Haunters".

Have you, or anyone else, read any of Sarban's three books, Ringstones, The Sound of His Horn, or The Doll Maker? I understand he has a unique voice.

I think The House by the Churchyard was one of the few works by Le Fanu that Lovecraft read, and it made him disappointed in the author.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think The House by the Churchyard was one of the
> few works by Le Fanu that Lovecraft read, and it
> made him disappointed in the author.

It was, and it did. (Another was "Green Tea", which he thought much better, though it still didn't cause him to give Le Fanu a very high rating; he seems to have missed many of the major points Le Fanu was making, and how truly bleak his vision was, seeing him instead as almost the prototypical Victorian ghost story writer... about which he could not have been more wrong. (He was also, apparently, unaware of the number of ghostly stories other than "The Turn of the Screw" which Henry James wrote, several of which are really very good, though fear or terror is not necessarily the main intent in the bulk of them.)

On the other hand, M. R. James felt that The House by the Churchyard was an excellent book. I probably fall somewhere between the two. I very much enjoyed it, and found several portions of it very fine, but it is a very uneven book, and the humorous aspects of it (recall HPL noting the odd blending of homely humor and horror in much of Irish literature in the field?) puts many readers off.

On Uncle Silas... I can see where you would get such an impression. It certainly isn't a happy book, or particularly light reading... but it is a very fine novel nonetheless, and develops in a rather different way some of the same themes which run through Le Fanu's ghost stories. By the way... if you're interested in Le Fanu's ghost stories, and attempting to find affordable editions, the Dover collections Best Ghost Stories of and Ghost Stories and Mysteries of Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu (both edited by E. F. Bleiler) are an excellent way to go, and you can usually find them for very, very little on the 'net. (And, between the two of them, you would get all but a very tiny handful of his supernatural tales.)

It will be interesting to see which stories you are tackling by each of these writers, and what the anthologies are. Looks like a very nifty discussion in the making.....

By the way, have you ever visited the Vault of Evil forum? There probably isn't a single supernatural author that hasn't been discussed, analyzed, and thoroughly kicked around there. In a somewhat lighter bustling tone.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By the way, have you ever visited the Vault of
> Evil forum? There probably isn't a single
> supernatural author that hasn't been discussed,
> analyzed, and thoroughly kicked around there. In a
> somewhat lighter bustling tone.

I have, though it has been a veerrrry long time; I also don't recall actually taking part in any conversations, but rather looking up some information. But thank you for the suggestion; it may indeed be something I would enjoy doing....

This The City and the Stars is almost too much for me. It pulls my sanity apart. Not sure if I'm going to continue reading. I had to pause.

Still, this is the sort of weirdness I always look for in fiction. But now when I finally get it, it seems I sink down into it over my head.

It tells of the very far future. Man's advancement of science has blurred the border between thought and matter. I wonder if this kind of manipulation of molecules, and matter organisers, is even theoretically possible. It may be. But in any case, it is not for our minds of today to grasp. Not at all. It is way beyond our evolution. And I doubt it is even healthy to mentally linger over. Clarke was most obviously not a commercial writer, but someone who put his own soul at stake in his explorations. The human anatomy of the future has basically been preserved through cell memory banks and by controlled synthetic birth. It had been changed, however, from its original primitive form, rebuilt to abolish ills of the flesh. Such unnecessary appurtenances as nails and teeth had vanished. The conception of voluntary loss of the teeth, feels totally weird, because it goes against a firmly ingrained set of emotional standards and principles of our being. It dares oppose it. *I'm beginning to feel sick.* The teeth are critical to our health, their condition intimately tied up with anxiety, and they are central to our appearance and social interaction with others. Here Clarke's greatness is revealed. Only a person with willingness to sacrifice his own sanity and social identification with current Humanity, and a certain degree of misanthropy, would come up with this kind of preposterous idea. He burns himself to the cause of ecstatic sin. (Fact is, that from early on he separated from his wife, he had no children, and fled to isolate himself on Sri Lanka.) Furthermore change; future male and female genders are difficult to distinguish from each other. Man's equipment no longer hangs in Nature's original inelegant and hazardous way, but is neatly stowed internally when not required.

So, I think you all can well understand why I couldn't go on reading. Madness awaits the rashly overbold reader.

This is one of my all time favorites and was Arthur's first efforts. It seems his vision is correct except for the size of the Computer.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This The City and the Stars is almost too much for
> me. It pulls my sanity apart. Not sure if I'm
> going to continue reading. I had to pause.
>
> Still, this is the sort of weirdness I always look
> for in fiction. But now when I finally get it, it
> seems I sink down into it over my head.
>
> It tells of the very far future. Man's advancement
> of science has blurred the border between thought
> and matter. I wonder if this kind of manipulation
> of molecules, and matter organisers, is even
> theoretically possible. It may be. But in any
> case, it is not for our minds of today to grasp.
> Not at all. It is way beyond our evolution. And I
> doubt it is even healthy to mentally linger over.
> Clarke was most obviously not a commercial writer,
> but someone who put his own soul at stake in his
> explorations. The human anatomy of the future has
> basically been preserved through cell memory banks
> and by controlled synthetic birth. It had been
> changed, however, from its original primitive
> form, rebuilt to abolish ills of the flesh. Such
> unnecessary appurtenances as nails and teeth had
> vanished. The conception of voluntary loss of the
> teeth, feels totally weird, because it goes
> against a firmly ingrained set of emotional
> standards and principles of our being. It dares
> oppose it. *I'm beginning to feel sick.* The teeth
> are critical to our health, their condition
> intimately tied up with anxiety, and they are
> central to our appearance and social interaction
> with others. Here Clarke's greatness is revealed.
> Only a person with willingness to sacrifice his
> own sanity and social identification with current
> Humanity, and a certain degree of misanthropy,
> would come up with this kind of preposterous idea.
> He burns himself to the cause of ecstatic sin.
> (Fact is, that from early on he separated from his
> wife, he had no children, and fled to isolate
> himself on Sri Lanka.) Furthermore change; future
> male and female genders are difficult to
> distinguish from each other. Man's equipment no
> longer hangs in Nature's original inelegant and
> hazardous way, but is neatly stowed internally
> when not required.
>
> So, I think you all can well understand why I
> couldn't go on reading. Madness awaits the rashly
> overbold reader.

Sounds amazing... I'm sold! And I'm pretty sure I've seen a copy in a second hand bookshop not too far from me... :)

Seems like my warning backfired. :(

Happy 150th birthday to Arthur Machen!

Not a weird author, but I'm enjoying the madcap work of Blaise Cendrars at the moment... some of his more surreal and decadent moments remind me a little of the imagery found in Hanns Heinz Ewers, especially the orgy scene near the beginning of Dan Yack. It often strikes me that in literature at least, post-modernism seems to (counter-intuitively) pre-date modernism - at least on the continent. Maybe because most English-language modernists (Joyce, Woolf) restricted much of their experimentation to new forms (non-forms) of prose/poetry (to explore their own psyches in their use of language), becoming increasing academic and elitist, but still largely restricted their outer narratives to relatively realist setting, cause/effect (maybe? maybe not?), settings, etc - whereas those on the continent (Kafka, Cendrars) were more (or as much) concerned with freeing their narratives from reality, therefore giving them something in tangentially common with the weird.

Please feel free to blow my meagre observations out of the water with your critical torpedoes, I'm not widely read in modernist literature and I'm sure that some or all of my comments could be based on faulty assumptions which in turn are built on a relatively small sampling of modernist texts. I realise modernism isn't a popular subject here and I'm certainly not a huge fan, but I feel that neither modernism not post-modernism are entirely irrelevant when talking about the weird. I often feel that if Joyce used as many adjectives as Lovecraft did then he'd have never been as criticised for it... indeed it'd probably be lorded as "stream of adjectives" and have become a legitimate writing technique in modern fiction.