Re: HPL & Nightmares -my essay
Posted by:
jdworth (IP Logged)
Date: 14 November, 2011 11:57PM
Absquatch: I don't know whether or not you (or anyone else, for the matter of that) would be interested in my responses, but foolhardiness has always been my besetting sin, so (as the saying goes) for what it's worth....
Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jdworth:
>
> As I mentioned, I really had not intended to
> comment further on this subject, but it would be
> churlish to overlook completely your carefully
> considered and thoughtful rejoinder.
>
> 1. Callaghan's Lovecraft criticism. Let's start
> with a few choice, and highly representative,
> excerpts (emphasis in capitals is mine):
>
> "That these multiple depictions of squatting look
> back to the period of Lovecraft’s earlier
> toilet-training definitely seems possible -SURELY
> a troublesome period in a household as inhibited
> and fastidious as Lovecraft’s."
>
> "One immediately thinks here of the marked
> excremental aspects of Lovecraft’s fiction: the
> subterranean (anal) vaults explored by his
> protagonists and inhabited by his monsters, the
> excremental Shoggoths, the frequent and flatulent
> blasts of wind and thunder, and the necrophilic
> behaviors and cannibalistic eating habits of
> Lovecraft’s creatures- habits which are
> essentially anal-sadistic in nature. [...]
> gathering unholy speed and driving before it a
> spiral, re-thickening cloud of the pallid abyss
> vapor (MM 101) (flatulence?)."
>
> "hile Greene was SEVEN years older, thus
> reflecting a transference or a continuation of the
> maternal role."
>
> You might wish to re-read these passages
> carefully, and then ask yourself again, "Do I
> really want to defend this?"
In my responses to Gavin's essay, I tackled some of this, calling attention to the dogmatism of certain aspects of it and expressing my concern that such a firm approach was not really supportable, at least on the evidence at hand. I especially took exception to the second passage you quote which, though I agree that such an interpretation is possible and even perhaps (given a Freudian framework) reasonable, far too limiting. On the bit about Sonia... while I agree that this sentence, in itself, is no indication of such, taken in conjunction with a number of other known factors about Lovecraft's life, it is not a terribly far-fetched concept. He did tend to surround himself with mother-substitutes a fair amount of his life, and his own views about his mother, though of course changing over time, always remained quite ambiguous... yet he never let go of the (in general terms) somewhat excessive attachment.
As for "defending"... I'm not at all sure that such needs defending, if posited less dogmatically. At any rate, given a Freudian-based analysis, Gavin has not done badly in general, though I do think there are some problems to be addressed.
>
> That said, I would agree that this latest
> contribution is less directly disparaging of
> Lovecraft than Callaghan's past offerings, but
> that isn't much of an improvement. Wholly apart
> from the usual endeavor to reduce Lovecraft, and
> even apart from the barefaced dementia of
> Callaghan's choice of archaic sources and
> perspectives, such as Sabine Baring-Gould, and, my
> personal favorite, the sleazy, limelight-seeking
> police psychiatrist J. Paul de River, the method
> is risible: The theories of archaic, highly
> dubious sources (Freud, Jones) are treated as
> bearing unimpeachable truth, then incidents and
> themes from Lovecraft's tales and biography are
> dutifully cherry-picked to fit the theory, and the
> only tie holding this farrago of circumstantial
> nonsense together is Callaghan's particular idée
> fixe.
>
I know nothing about de River or Jones aside from the essay itself, so cannot comment there; but -- despite challenges (which, again, I mention in my responses) -- I would hesitate to label Freud as "archaic" or "highly dubious" quite so casually. Personally, as I said in those comments, I find Freud tends to ben too limiting, too dogmatic, too fixated on certain aspects to the exclusion of others which are equally deserving of notice... and these aspects of his work don't (from my understanding) fare too well in light of recent findings, especially with what we are learning via such fields as neurology working in combination with psychiatry and the like. Still, there is a good deal of Freud which remains rather strongly supported (again, as I understand it) by some of the leading figures in the therapeutic fields, albeit often modified.
The upshot here being that, while not "up-to-date" on current theoretical models, such a Freudian look at the work is by no means outside the bounds of acceptable criticism.
> jdworth: "As I say, I don't see an attempt to
> 'explain' Lovecraft, but rather to view his work
> through a certain lens in this instance."
>
> Honestly, this is sophistical, to me. The "lens"
> through which Callaghan has viewed Lovecraft, as
> evidenced in this forum, is always the same: A
> racist, fear-driven, over-privileged New England
> WASP aristocrat whose writings and perspectives
> can be reduced to nothing more than than the sum
> of his alleged phobias and biases. Now, instead of
> the perspective of self-righteous class warfare,
> the assault comes via Freudianism. The chords and
> the tempo may vary, but the song remains the same.
> I am not worried, though, because attacking
> Lovecraft with Freud is the equivalent of
> assaulting a modern army with catapults and
> halberds.
>
I am sorry you find this to be sophistical. To me, it is a rather strong distinction between "explaining", "reducing", or "attacking", and bringing a certain perspective to bear on the works to see what (if anything) of value may be gathered in the process. The fact that he states in his response to my comments that this is only one of a variety of perspectives he uses in a much larger work, combined with some of his other postings I've seen here and there, leads me to see this as examining different facets of Lovecraft's work, much like looking through a prism (hence my use of "lens"), turning it different ways for different essays, to provide in the end a larger, more searching view of the whole. To me, this is an interesting, perhaps even admirable, approach... provided that the person
doing the analysis is careful to not violate known facts about the subject. While I may disagree -- even strongly disagree -- with certain portions of what he has to say, or feel a lack of sympathy for the particular perspective in question, this is a personal preference of my own, and in no way invalidates such an approach.
As I said above, my sympathy with a Freudian perspective is limited, but not entirely absent. I have seen some fascinating work done using such a perspective, work which tends to leave me with a greater admiration for the artist in question than I had before. I think Gavin's work has the potential, at least, for this as well. (I will admit, though, that I never thought I'd be speaking up for an analysis from this angle, given my relative coldness to such an approach!)
> jdworth: " also makes it quite evident that he
> finds much to admire in HPL as well."
>
> "Quite evident"? You and I have a very different
> lexicon, it seems. Anyway, I freely admit that I
> have missed that particular needle in the
> haystack. I would enjoy seeing examples, and, in
> particular, I would like to see a totting up of
> the positive references versus the negative ones.
> I'll wager that the latter will outnumber the
> former by at least a factor of ten.
>
It is true that I have not had a chance to go back through the essay in its entirety to do this, but I do recall -- and, if memory serves, even commented on -- passages where Gavin spoke with a certain degree of respect and perhaps even admiration concerning Lovecraft's abilities to turn such original material into truly effective, even grand, works of weird art, as well as several where he comments favorably on Lovecraft's intellect and courage. As for the "negative" aspects here... given the nature of the analysis, I'm not sure that is a just description. Such tendencies as he posits don't tend to carry such moral characterizations in such a framework; they are more fairly common primal experiences and associations we all tend to have to one degree or another. What is interesting is how something which, at base, is often seen (again, in such theories) as so common, can be used by an individual like Lovecraft to create work which not only has such resonance with others, but manages to be unique and individual.
At any rate, I was struck by the degree to which Gavin -- who has, at times, been a bit more censorious of HPL than I feel merited -- presented his utilizing such material in such a way not as something "wrong" or "morbid", but actually as therapeutic and creative. Such is my impression from the essay, anyhow.
> jdworth: "There is a world of difference between
> noting psychological and emotional traits which
> are strongly indicated (if not necessarily
> proven)."
>
> There is an even greater world of difference
> between, on the one hand, proving that these
> emotional traits exist in Lovecraft--no reputable
> psychologist would ever analyze a patient in
> absentia--and that the theory Callaghan invokes to
> interpret them has even a remote basis in reality,
> and, on the other, what Callaghan has done in this
> essay: To assume the validity of his theoretical
> framework, and then to draw "logical" inferences
> from his application of them to certain
> cherry-picked themes, creatures, and incidents in
> Lovecraft's fiction.
>
You are quite correct in stating that no therapist would undertake to make such an analysis... but the intent there (and the significance of such an analysis, if accepted, on the field) would be quite a different thing than what we have here, which is utilizing a (rather broad) Freudian lens to look at certain traits in Lovecraft's work and life. Again, I have expressed my own reservations about the "certainty" at times expressed in the essay, but in general I would argue that the procedure remains relatively sound, within the context.
> jdworth: "Again, whether or not CAS would approve
> of such an examination of his friend is beside the
> point."
>
> It's not beside the point I was trying to make,
> whose context I'll leave you to re-examine, if you
> wish.
>
> jdworth: "or, if memory serves, was CAS entirely
> dismissive of (Freud), though he approached him
> with greater caution than most."
>
> I beg your pardon, but CAS really was dismissive
> of Freud. If the multiple pejorative references in
> the letters and the essays don't convince you,
> then ask calonlan, if you doubt my word.
>
My memory, obviously, did not serve.... Yes, I'd say he was dismissive of Freud's theories, though I think he recognized his significance historically -- that is, as an influence. He did not, however, apparently agree with it at all. (I could have sworn I saw some statement from him, a long time ago, which indicated he wasn't entirely dismissive, but apparently I am quite mistaken. At least, I've not been able to track it down.)
> 2. CAS and literary criticism: As I mentioned, if
> we broaden the term to the point of absurdity, to
> include opinions, short personal essays, brief
> book introductions, etc., then you are correct,
> CAS engaged in literary criticism. My point is
> that I do not accept that broad a definition.
>
> More specifically, I am trying to compare apples
> to apples: In other words, the formal, lengthy and
> (superficially) scholarly study, theory driven and
> laden with footnotes, such as Callaghan is
> endeavoring to produce, versus CAS's quite brief
> personal essays, bits of puffery for friends, and
> his book review. I don't want to argue about the
> definition of the term, but, to me, "literary
> criticism" in the professional sense is what we
> are describing here, and CAS had little to no
> truck with it.
>
Given the qualifications above, I stand properly rebuked. We differ on this, but as for comparing like to like... you are indubitably correct.
> 3. Science: No, I am afraid I understood you
> perfectly. When you write, "I find that science
> offers the best course we have (so far) evolved to
> come to a genuine understanding of how the
> universe (including ourselves) works", that is
> exactly the perspective that I (and CAS) oppose.
> Those who believe that science provides a
> "genuine" (whatever that may mean) understanding
> are welcome to believe that. Again, though, I do
> not want to argue about this subject. The last
> time I did so, I was quickly surrounded by hyenas,
> a fiasco that ended in my having my previous
> account banned. To suggest among educated people
> today that science does not offer the final word
> on a given subject, as I learned the hard way, is
> the equivalent of advocating for heliocentrism in
> the 13th Century. You're welcome to disagree with
> CAS wherever you wish, of course, but I am happy
> to have him on my side, in this instance.
>
It is a pity that a disagreement about this should take such an acrimonious turn. I still feel that science remains the best tool we have so far evolved to find the truth behind such questions, but would like to hear a good deal more on the reasons behind your disagreement with that view.
> Now, let us, as usual, agree to disagree for the
> most part, and turn to more important and
> interesting things. I, for one, do not want to
> promote Callaghan, or offer him any more attention
> than I feel he deserves, which is very little. By
> that criterion, I have already spent far too much
> time here.
As I said at the beginning, I don't know whether my responses to your points will be of any interest to you, but if so, I at least hope that I have clarified a point or two....