> You just answered your own question. So long as
> these writers publish in editions of 300 or so at
> a price of $40-$50 apiece, very few, indeed, will
> read them. I sometimes wonder whether that is
> perhaps the intention?

I doubt it. Have you noticed what has been happening in publishing over the past decade?

Jim

Quote:

Have you noticed what has been happening in publishing over the past decade?

As a matter of fact, I have, but on all levels. For instance, not long ago, there was a T.E.D. Klein collection limited to a few hundred copies! Are we really supposed to believe that demand would be that low for the work of someone who published an acclaimed novel with a major publisher not so long ago?

Most small press horror publishing boutiques are a racket, so far as I am concerned, one that is designed to take advantage of and perpetuate artificial scarcity. One translator of a critically acclaimed, but unduly obscure, author of weird fiction told me privately that he no longer intends to work with such small press publishers, and their fifty-dollar price tags. I doubt that he would have decided to do this if he felt that there was no other options available to him. Other outlets do exist, if one takes the trouble and patience to find them--or make them.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 29 Jul 09 | 11:11AM by Kyberean.

Jim Rockhill:

Quote:

From Wikipedia (as a handy reference): "According to Otto the numinous experience has two aspects: mysterium tremendum, which is the tendency to invoke fear and trembling; and mysterium fascinas, the tendency to attract, fascinate and compel. The numinous experience also has a personal quality to it, in that the person feels to be in communion with a wholly other."

And an incorrect reference, as well. Read The Idea of the Holy, rather than quickly cribbed notes from the Internet, if you really want to understand the concept as Otto intends it. For one thing, the entire idea of the numinous cannot be decoupled from the idea of the sacred or the holy. Where exactly in Campbell's "numinous" fiction do you find this coupling?

Also, if you bother to read Otto, you'll notice that the fascinans aspect is a later addendum by commentators.

Re. Oxford: I never stated that your entire argument rests upon your reverent citation of the Oxford volume, but if the purpose was not to bolster your view, then why did you refer to it ? Since this appeal to authority obviously was to bolster your view, it is open to the criticism I have laid.

Quote:

Kyberean's pronunciations on this topic have been characterized more by the solemnity with which he presents his opinions than by the quality of evidence he has used to bolster it.

Here, we have the pot calling the kettle black. In addition, Jim seems to have misunderstood the entire nature of the discussion. I have from the outset made clear that I am merely presenting my opinions. I am not trying to "prove" anything, especially something that cannot be proven objectively, such as literary quality or merit. Surely, there's no need to translate de gustibus, with which I headed yesterday's post, is there?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 29 Jul 09 | 01:56PM by Kyberean.

jdworth:

I did not write the quotation you ascribe to me about King, Koontz, et al. That was someone else.

Joshi's occasional criticism of Campbell does not outweigh his otherwise mindless veneration, so far as I am concerned. I mean, good grief, scholars make critical remarks about Shakespeare and Keats, but that fact hardly affects their evaluation of such writers' work as a whole. In the same vein, Joshi's occasional critiques of Campbell do not negate his fan-boyish enthusiasm and his regrettable tendency to over-rate Campbell's work, from my perspective.

By the way, just to set alight the straw-man that I can see beginning to form, let's be clear that I am not asserting that every word that Campbell has ever written is garbage. I am asserting that, in my opinion, his work as a whole is relatively poor, and certainly over-rated--and, especially, it is over-rated by Joshi. Compared to Robert Aickman, for instance, Joshi gives Campbell a free pass. Myself, I have little-to-no interest in the tastes and opinions of anyone who seems to think that Campbell is superior to Aickman, or that the latter deserves more criticism than the former. It is especially galling, to me, to read Joshi rake Aickman over the coals for precisely the faults that stand out like carbuncles, by comparison, in Campbell's own work.

With regard to the numinous: See my reply to Jim Rockhill.

With regard to Campbell's style and content, there are at least two ways to interpret Campbell's technique:


1. As tantalizing and skillfully deployed ambiguity, which creates an effective atmosphere of mystery; or,

2. As a lazy attempt to make the reader do all the work, and then to deflect criticism by invoking the beauty of the Emperor's New Clothes.


You know where I stand on the matter, so I am not going to repeat myself.

In conclusion, I will simply add that all that members of the pro-Campbell faction here have done is express their own subjective opinions on the matter. That's fair enough, but the double standard they evoke is not. Apparently, it's OK when they assert their naked opinions, but it's not OK when I do so. Here, it seems, only unpopular opinions are subject to demands for proof and adherence to rules of evidence.

Oh, well, at least no one has tried to defend Shirley Jackson! :-P



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 29 Jul 09 | 11:09AM by Kyberean.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jim Rockhill:
>
> From Wikipedia (as a handy reference): "According
> to Otto the numinous experience has two aspects:
> mysterium tremendum, which is the tendency to
> invoke fear and trembling; and mysterium fascinas,
> the tendency to attract, fascinate and compel. The
> numinous experience also has a personal quality to
> it, in that the person feels to be in communion
> with a wholly other."
>
> And an incorrect reference, as well. Read The Idea
> of the Holy, rather than quickly cribbed notes
> from the Internet, if you really want to
> understand the concept as Otto intends it. For one
> thing, the entire idea of the numinous cannot be
> decoupled from the idea of the sacred or the holy.
> Where exactly in Campbell's "numinous" fiction do
> you find this coupling?

My fault for relying on a ready reference, given 5 minutes to respond before heading out the door this morning. My use of the numinous re: Campbell and several of the other authors I mention is indeed based upon AN idea of the holy and the sacred. I believe that much of the best post-WWI supernatural fiction is based on a nontraditional concept of the holy or an unwitting transgression against what modern man can no longer identify as the holy - traditional concepts of holiness (and perhaps the capacity of many to retain much more than a superstitious fear of it) having been severely weakened for many by Darwin and other scientists, before being blown apart completely at the Somme). The clearest link to this idea I can call to mind at present is this passage from Arthur Machen's "The Red Hand": "There are sacraments of evil as well as of good about us, and we live and move to my belief in an unknown world, a place where there are caves and shadows and dwellers in twilight." In other words, human beings continue to dwell in a numinous landscape without recognizing it for what it is, until some terrifying manifestation threatens or overwhelms.

This statement does not strike me as completely accurate: "especially something that cannot be proven objectively, such as literary quality or merit." Yes, there are plenty of works of art that are technically accomplished but incapable of sustaining anyone's interest longer than a single season. I would argue that literary quality can be measured to a certain extent, but agree with you that merit can not.

Funny you should mention Aickman and Campbell in the same sentence, then dismiss Campbell as follows:

"With regard to Campbell's style and content, there are at least two ways to interpret Campbell's technique:


"1. As tantalizing and skillfully deployed ambiguity, which creates an effective atmosphere of mystery; or,

"2. As a lazy attempt to make the reader do all the work, and then to deflect criticism by invoking the beauty of the Emperor's New Clothes."

I love Aickman's work, but find him much more of a challenge to comprehension than
Campbell. I simply happen to believe that the work of both authors is worth the effort. I think the rewards are greater, because the greater concentration required not only reveals the surface plot, but also a number of deeper, darker implications that I may not have appreciated otherwise.

This relates, to me at any rate, to the old, many-times-revisited argument of implication vs. direct visualization in horror films. The events in Wise's THE HAUNTING, Clayton's THE INNOCENTS, and the Val Lewton films stimulate my imagination in ways that many other films fail to do. Many films can shock or terrify, but few can produce awe; even fewer, in my experience, are capable of producing this emotion upon repeated viewings.

Finding fiction capable of producing awe is also rare, but, for me, Campbell is among those few who has succeeded, though it is as rare an achievement for him as it is for any writer. Additionally, which novels and stories work best for me are not those that Scott cited. Differing experiences and attitudes are going to make some readers more susceptible to certain triggers than others.

Awe could be interpreted as a secular form of reverence - you do not have to believe or understand what you are experiencing to feel awe - and this brings us back, rather circuitously it must be admitted, to the concept of holiness.

Jim

jimrockhill2001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I love Aickman's work, but find him much more of a
> challenge to comprehension than
> Campbell.

With a few exceptions, Aickman's work is clearly not intended to be "comprehended"---in the sense of understood as narratives with some logic that can be figured out, or as "meaning" something---but rather simply to be experienced.

One difference between Aickman and Campbell is this: Every Aickman story is unique with regard to subject-matter and presentation, but nevertheless the reader is left with the feeling that there is some overarching approach that they all have in common. Campbell, an admirer of Aickman, has apparently mistakenly decided that elements of what we think of as the Aickman style can be distilled into a set of simple, repeatable narrative techniques, which can then be applied to anything one likes.

To put the Campbell business to rest, on my end, at least:

I return to my original point, which is that Joshi handles Campbell with kid gloves, in comparison to his treatment of other--in my opinion, far better--writers, such as Aickman and Ligotti. So, I repeat: If Joshi really merits his "meanest critic" status, or whatever the original post stated, then let him apply the same critical rigor to Campbell's work as he does to others'. I have yet to read any evidence of his having done so, to date.

If, however, I've missed any of Joshi's work on Campbell in which Joshi does more than merely nitpick at a point or two, and instead unreels negativity after negativity, as he did in his infamous Aickman piece in Studies in Weird Fiction, then someone please give me a reference to it, and I'll gladly retract my statements.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 29 Jul 09 | 05:37PM by Kyberean.

Jim, you have said many of the things I'd intended to say when I next posted, so I'll try not to recover the same ground. (Interesting, though, that several of the same examples came to mind with both.)

I will add that, as noted earlier, my approach to the sublime or the numinous (no, not the same thing, but closely related) stems much more from my reading of earlier writers, such as Edmund Burke, Ann Radcliffe, or Anna Laetitia Barbauld and was, in fact, almost certainly influenced by my reading of Poe at a very early age. While I would agree that there is a secular element to the sort of thing Campbell does (the origin and, oftentimes, the actual incident or detail), I would argue that the effect is anything but, and once again restores, by its evocation of the disjuncture between our reality and that experienced at that moment (whether brief or prolonged) by the characters, the essence of the holy or sacred in much the sense indicated by the quote from Machen above. To me, such an effect, and its intention, are inextricably linked to such things, even if the holy or sacred evoked have little or nothing to do with pre-existing traditions of what is "holy". And, for me, Campbell manages to do this quite a respectable amount of the time. Nor do I agree that he has, in Jojo's phrase, distilled certain aspects of Aickman's style into "simple, repeatable narrative techniques" -- though I would agree that he does sometimes use such an approach to excess.

On the idea of the "popular" opinions versus the "unpopular" opinions... Sorry to hear that, as I see this more as a discussion or debate (in the main), where offering one's honest opinions and judgments would be welcome. We are none of us likely to alter the others' opinions greatly -- especially where so strongly held -- but such a discussion can provide food for thought and a different perspective, and that seems a worthy enough reason to bring such thoughts to the table.

As to Kyberean's response regarding the list of authors: Yes, I know. But I quoted your use of it as a shortcut, as it were, in order to address the question you posed (the reason why they are so seldom mentioned when stating our own tastes, etc.). If doing so led to any confusion, my sincere apologies.

And, obviously, I tend toward the first of the options mentioned when it comes to Campbell -- though not invariably. For my part, I certainly do not feel Campbell is superior to Aickman -- that would be an incredible feat for just about anyone -- but I do strongly feel he is, at his best (which is by no means confined to his earlier years), worthy of considerable respect as a craftsman in the field, worthy to stand with no few of the brighter lights of earlier eras. Again, this is my opinion, but I think it is a considered one, not undertaken lightly.

As to Joshi's approach to Campbell... I will agree that it is not as objective as that applied to several others; but I still feel it is far from "handling him with kid gloves". (Incidentally, if you are referring to his "Robert Aickman: 'So Little is Definite'" in issue #18, I can't say that I found it all that negative in approach. Instead, I found it quite interesting and an intriguing look at Aickman. It certainly is more in Joshi's usual line, which does focus a good deal more on faults than strengths with many writers, but most often (especially in the essay under discussion) with the approach that these are blemishes which should be addressed and disposed of in otherwise exemplary work. The feeling I came away with was one of an enormous respect and admiration for Aickman, though not unseasoned with a desire that the perceived faults did not exist. (Even when this perception would seem to be in error, as I would argue is the case on occasion.)

At any rate, I generally find Joshi's comments worthy of notice, but I also have points where I strongly disagree with him. To me, this makes for a stimulating experience; so I look forward to having the time to actually get into the book in the near future....

In spite of my earlier post with criticism towards Campbell, I cherish the things I have read by him. His distinctively palpable surroundings, and instinctive handling and understanding and taste for the weird, are delicious. Deliscious. And even if he may perhaps be more engulfed and right in the middle of it all, than Lovecraft the outside observer with full understanding (within the limits of Man's ability) of Nature's workings and symbolic frameworks, he probably has a whole lot more wisdom than the bunch of us criticizing him here on this forum. There is nothing pretentious about Campbell, he is passionate, and totally obsessive about his chosen subject. And all time he has spent with the weird, has certainly paid off. He has an incredible understanding of the things he do well. I just reread one of his early stories, The Render of the Veils, and he paints it well, with many descriptive details, and even gives the full sensation of being touched by the demon.

Besides, from a moral perspective, and gentleman's viewpoint, I think it is better to say something nice about another, than throw shit at him. If one can't say anything nice, or at the very least, give supportive constructive criticism, one does better to stay quiet and redirect one's focus elsewhere towards something one likes. I feel tainted and ugly after saying negative things about someone. Finding faults... I victimize and abuse him, and he never asked me for it. It's simply wrong. And it says more about me, than about him, it reveals my inablility to create something good of my own.

We live in a strange time. Back in the old days, the writers and artists were the real stars. Today, TV-show hosts, journalists, critics, editors, have become the "stars" people look up to. Or at least, occupying half of the focus (on book-covers for example). The experts. Who recycle, and churn over the old, over and over. Today it's more important for people to try to achieve respect by having a "worthwhile" opinion, and make an "important" mark (an illusion made possible by the internet) by proving and showing all that one understands, than to try to create a thing of beauty. The masses gather to forums, blogs, Amazon, like flies to a dunghill, and try to be experts; the misdirected "ultimate stardom" of today. I think it is a sign of a sick, unhealthy society.

My wish is that people to a higher degree would focus on the beauteous (instead of trying to reach higher up the hill by trampling down others), and thereby be inspired to create beauty of their own. We ought to stimulate the divine, the artists and writers, the creators, in our souls instead.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 30 Jul 09 | 06:53AM by Knygatin.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Besides, from a moral perspective, and gentleman's
> viewpoint, I think it is better to say something
> nice about another, than throw shit at him. If one
> can't say anything nice, or at the very least,
> give supportive constructive criticism, one does
> better to stay quiet and redirect one's focus
> elsewhere towards something one likes.

I try not to laugh at children's drawings, etc. But when something is sold for money it is, of course, fair game. Apart from alerting people to what is good, criticism also has the valid and crucial function of warning people away from what is not so good.

Jojo Lapin X Wrote:
>
> I try not to laugh at children's drawings, etc.
> But when something is sold for money it is, of
> course, fair game. Apart from alerting people to
> what is good, criticism also has the valid and
> crucial function of warning people away from what
> is not so good.

I would take it a step further, and say that, even when something is good, a valid function of criticism is to note flaws, mistakes, and unevennesses in the writing, structure, or development of any work. Such an approach serves as a way to improve critical appreciation of not only individual works or writers, but literature and writing in general; to aid any writer who reads the criticism to avoid such mistakes in their work in future; and -- when done well -- to sharpen the critical faculties in other spheres, as well as open areas of intelligent discussion and debate.

Were we to invariably avoid a sharper tone, much of the world's greatest criticism would simply not exist, and we would lack a great deal of the work of earlier critics, from Pope to Johnson to Poe to Smith to Lovecraft... as well as numerous contemorary critics who are worthy of attention.

Noting the better qualities is a fine thing; but to keep silent -- or even mute one's comments to avoid injuring feelings -- when one sees glaring (or even minor) errors or infelicities in something is a dishonest approach to criticism, and robs it of its salubrious effect.

Amen to JoJo's last post. I would add that it is unfair and inaccurate to assert that all criticism is mere unproductive negativity. As Hegel wrote, "the hand that inflicts the wound is also the hand that heals it".

I can criticize those who don't perform their profession correctly. Like a doctor who gives a wrong diagnosis and treatment, a mailman who has mislaid my package, or a watchmaker who has repaired my watch and made it go backwards.

But when it comes to criticizing an artist, I believe one should be careful in choosing one's words. Because there is no definite measurement in art for what is right and wrong, good or bad. It's much a matter of preference in the viewer/reader. And if it is a serious artist, by criticizing his work, you criticize his soul and personality. Many artists carry emotional and existential anguish, and choose a precarious life path as artists to search for some kind of order for their inner turmoil. They take the risk of exposing their most inner selfs, they are often more emotionally steered than rational in their handling of reality, and their sense of selfworth can be quite fragile and easily hurt by others. Artists have no measure stick to go by, as in other professions, they largely fumble by instinct (to reach beyond mere craft), and they should be encouraged for their daring. A few are lucky to be paid back economically for the efforts they expose to the World, but that doesn't change the facts.
If it was pure commercial entertainment, then I would place the performer among the other professions above, and wouldn't hesitate giving hard criticizm. But not for a serious artist. Where weird literature fits on this scale I don't know, perhaps in between, but it depends on the writer's own intentions.

If it is an artist who is dead, then it's a different matter, because the critic will not hurt another by his degrading, except maybe his own inner well-being.
Ramsey Campbell may visit and read this forum, although I strongly doubt it.

I think it might be a good idea to strive for the principle of not saying more on the Internet than one could say shamelessly if one was to meet eye to eye with the artist.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can criticize those who don't perform their
> profession correctly. Like a doctor who gives a
> wrong diagnosis and treatment, a mailman who has
> mislaid my package, or a watchmaker who has
> repaired my watch and made it go backwards.
>
> But when it comes to criticizing an artist, I
> believe one should be careful in choosing one's
> words. Because there is no definite measurement in
> art for what is right and wrong, good or bad. It's
> much a matter of preference in the viewer/reader.
> And if it is a serious artist, by criticizing his
> work, you criticize his soul and personality. Many
> artists carry emotional and existential anguish,
> and choose a precarious life path as artists to
> search for some kind of order for their inner
> turmoil. They take the risk of exposing their most
> inner selfs, they are often more emotionally
> steered than rational in their handling of
> reality, and their sense of selfworth can be quite
> fragile and easily hurt by others. Artists have no
> measure stick to go by, as in other professions,
> they largely fumble by instinct (to reach beyond
> mere craft), and they should be encouraged for
> their daring. A few are lucky to be paid back
> economically for the efforts they expose to the
> World, but that doesn't change the facts.

There really is no distinction to be had here. I'd agree that the artists among us are often dreamers who enrich our lives with what they do... but there is no reason to not criticize when they do it badly... or even when they do it well overall, but fumble. This is actually very helpful to any writer who wishes to be good at what they do. Holding back on honest critical commentary is detrimental to the growth of a writer, as well as stultifying to the reader or -- to draw a distinction -- critical reader.

And I'm sorry, but there really are good, largely objective, guidelines when it comes to judging "what is right and wrong, good or bad" in art, as well: justness of proportion; ability to handle the materials well; degree of structure; richness or paucity of language; originality (or lack thereof) in theme, use of metaphor (or figurative language in general); ability to convey one's intent (whether that be plot, message, or subtle gradations of emotional resonance) to a fairly literate reader; and so on. And, of course, a writer deserves more praise the higher they score on each (or all) of these; whereas failure in any (or all) area(s) equally deserves censure -- the degree of severity largely depending on the individual critic and the writer's manifest intent (not always, but quite often, easily discernible by their tone and manner).

One cannot, of course, say with 100% assurance whether something a writer commits to paper is the result of an honest attempt to convey some pressing need (image, idea, emotion, what-have-you) or whether, to the writer him/herself they were successful in doing so... but one can certainly say whether or not they were successful in communicating it to another (oneself) and, the more widely (and deeply) read such a reader is, the more likely they are to be able to judge whether or not this success (or lack of) is general, sheerly by dint of their experience with what has worked for a representative number of people over a reasonable amount of time.

These guidelines may not be invariably accurate, but they have worked quite well for a very, very long time.

As for the writer's angst -- that really isn't the reader's problem. It is that of the writer; and anyone who chooses to take the risk to put themselves out there for a reading public to judge may be brave, but that by no means makes them a good writer. They may be complete crap at the job, or they may be one of the great visionary voices of all time. And it is here that the valid use of criticism enters in in such a case: even the harshest criticism carries within it lessons to be learned on how to improve; and, if the writer is serious about what they do, then they would do well to take heed of such criticism and see what it does have to offer. No writer can stand the gaffe if they let their fragile ego get in the way -- that is just a plain fact; and to mollycoddle them is to do them (and oneself) a disservice. It is hypocritical and, furthermore, damages the very art one claims to be attempting to support by allowing inferior material to be put on the same plane as that of a superior nature. It is relativism taken to absurd extremes. And, as any professional writer will tell you, they have learned a damn' sight more from the "negative" criticism than they ever did from that which was strictly positive.

As for Ramsey Campbell -- he has been a professional writer for over four decades now; I don't think anything said here is likely to even begin to compare to what he has encountered over that period; nor do I think he is weak enough (either as a writer or person) to need such coddling. To defer to any writer to that degree is to treat them with a lack of respect rather than the reverse. Honest praise -- yes, by all means. But also honest disagreements or criticisms in general -- that shows a writer you respect him and his work enough to believe they can take it, and may in fact be able to improve (or even prove you wrong by their efforts).

I'd suggest you look into what various writers over the years have had to say about what they have learned from their critics. I think you'll find that the vast majority (and certainly of professional writers) feel more grateful for honest, even if severe, criticism than for that which simply strokes their ego, as it is the former which helps them to increase their abilities in their craft and art.

Well, the line between criticizing the craft and the art, becomes blurred in many criticims. It becomes a matter of personal taste. You argue as if critics were objective observers, whereas I believe very few of them have any such abilities in a total sense. (This is what I mean by journalists and critics having become the real "stars" that people look up to in our time. The masses are herded by the crap "expertize" that fills the papers, TV, and bookstore shelves.) I appreciate reading a good, well thought out, criticism... but I also realize at the same time, that it is likely to a large degree personal reflections on the critic's part, his particular perspective. And I agree with you that exchange of such reflections may increase and widen our perspectives (although too much critical intellectual self-consciousness may also hamper free creativity). The best critcics are those that themselves are accomplished artists, because they often have the ability of undertstanding on deeper levels, and comprehend what is relevant, and don't go stepping on other's toes needlessly (unless at the same time plagued by boisterous unbalanced egos). And I am not refering to criticism of the purely technical side of the craft, in which flaws may be obvious to the less observant among us, (besides, sometimes the artist may intentionally steer away from given rules of the craft, for their own intentions.)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 1 Aug 09 | 02:20AM by Knygatin.