It is commonly thought that the problem with the Internet is the proliferation of "trolls." In reality the problem is the huge number of people who go around looking for things that they can be offended by and complain about. Bear in mind that I speak as a troll, of course.

I should, I guess,'ve posted the Crews review in THIS thread, but I thought the title "Call of Cthulhooh" was a bit less dull and pompous than the above. But here's a touch of Postmodern Pooh anyways:

Quote:

Among Milne's contemporaries, very few meet the triple criteria for authorship of Pooh: metaphysical pessimism, extraordinary literary gifts and a knack for writing sympathetically about animal characters. There is, of course, Franz Kafka, a worthy candidate in all three respects. I judge, however, that the gap between Gregor Samsa and Alexander Beetle is too vast to be plausibly bridged.

And another:

Quote:

"Heidegger Reading Pooh Reading Hegel Reading Husserl: Or, Isn't it Punny How a Hun Likes Beary?"

I'd say each of those is a pons asinorum: if you don't laugh, either you don't know Pooh or you don't know SH*T. About lit-crit, that is.

Absquatch wrote:

*** 1. Trolling: This term usually refers not just to online provocation for the sake of it, but to provocation out of purely malicious or mischievous motives. Generation of heat is always the aim, never of light. Provocation isn't trolling, in my view, when the aim is to incite serious reflection on what are perhaps unexamined assumptions, nor is it equivalent merely to strong statements of personal taste or opinion. ***

I've never trolled in my lifestyle. But I don't believe in bleating to the beat, either.

*** "Needling" isn't really an instance of trolling, either. My personal policy is to get out the needles only when I am in the presence of too many hot-air balloons. ***

If "CAStrati" is a needle, I use it to wake people from their dogmatic slumbers. Or to try to. CAS is a Dead White European Male. Far too many members of the CAS community, or CAS fans (as we sociopaths prefer to call 'em), seem to have accepted the dogmas of a Kult dedicated to the defenestration of the DWEM. And the LWEM. Then there's the ridiculous spectacle of CAS fans defending turgid, solecism-strewn, Fraud-fuddled lit-crit against "prescriptivism" and "pedantry." Then Shelob scuttles out. What next? L. Ron Hubbard? Oprah?

*** 4. Literary criticism: In the contemporary sense of the term, "literary criticism" tends to refer mainly to the professional activity of university professors who must "publish or perish". Modern literary criticism tends to be heavily theory-driven (although usually the theories are more current than, say, Victorian/Edwardian-era Freudianism), and often skewed by personal ideology and identity politics to which the critic has undue emotional attachment. ***

And by-no-means-undue financial attachment. The Lit-Krit Kult Keeps the Kash safe with a "gas ceiling:" you gotta gush the gas, squawk the talk to belong to it. Constantly updating and subdividing the nonsense helps keep amateurs and outsiders where they belong: outside. But lit-crit SHOULD be an amateur enterprise, in the best sense of "amateur": you should do it for love of an author, not for love of oneself or hope of gain. (Or do it for love of literature -- Twain didn't love Fenimore Cooper). As it IS, the Kult has a great deal in common with Fraudeanism even when it isn't LITerally Fraudean:

Quote:

Briefly, Crews argues that psychoanalysis is a spurious, ineffective pseudoscience, based on the fudged data of an unscrupulous and calculating founder and perpetuated by followers who mimic his craftiness in a “shell game whereby critics of Freudianism are always told that new breakthroughs render their strictures obsolete.” The recovered memory movement is the most recent, and most dangerous, mutation of Freud’s ideas, and just as much a piece of “legerdemain” as its forerunners.
No wonder Freud’s (surprisingly, still numerous) advocates find Crews so aggravating. He is a formidable stylist — lucid, elegant and wielding an acid and damning wit. Freudians, not known for such strengths, tend to fulminate impotently in response to his assaults. He has also done what, in online parlance, is referred to as “the heavy lifting” — extensive and meticulous research — and when he describes Freud as behaving like “a petty generalissimo” or psychoanalysis as “a conceptual mystery house,” he can back it up with empirical ammo.

Yet there’s a whiff of crankishness around this enterprise, an obsessive note that Crews’ critics are quick to pick up on. They accuse him of intemperance, of anger, of blinding bitterness and symbolic “parricide.” (One critic even suggested that the NYRB articles were the result of a Review editor’s failed analysis.) There’s an Oedipal violence in this, they imply with lifted eyebrows, which must have truly maddened Crews. Crews, in turn, insists that in writing his denunciation he felt “cheerful and confident, as well as public-spirited,” like Ralph Nader going after General Motors.

[www.salon.com]

*** To be clear, I do have great respect for Freud, though it may not seem so. He was a brave pioneer, a profound thinker, and he did the best he could with the materials and knowledge available to him. ***

You obviously know little about psychology, but then you know little about science. Be warned: there are shocks in store.

*** I despise people who take cheap shots at Freud, or at individuals such as Marx, for that matter-- ***

Oh dear. Is it permissible to take a cheap shot at any individual? Or only organizAtions?

*** especially when such types haven't read either writer, which is more often than not the case. ***

I've sampled enough of both Fraud and Marx not to care to devote any more time to either.

*** Both men may have had a deleterious effect on our civilization, as a whole, but they were brilliant individuals who were not by any means wrong about everything. ***

Can you name anyone who is wrong about EV'rything? A stopped clock etc, etc. If by "brilliant" you mean prolix, stakhonovite and egomaniac, I heartily agree. Shelob was brilliant in that sense too.

---

“The true independent is he who dwells detached and remote from the little herds as well as from the big herd. Affiliating with no group or cabal of mice or monkeys, he is of course universally suspect.” — The Black Book of Gore Vidal.

treycelement:

Quote:

but I thought the title "Call of Cthulhooh" was a bit less dull and pompous than the above.

Oh, dear, didn't you appreciate my ironic reference to Northrop Frye? Or didn't you catch it, more like? I am flattered to have out-alluded an esteemed channeller of the thoroughly devalued Pound.

Quote:

You obviously know little about psychology, but then you know little about science. Be warned: there are shocks in store.

A puzzling statement, as you could not possibly be aware of what I do or do not know about psychology or science. So far as the latter goes, I will happily pit my knowledge of the subject--and particularly of its history--against yours or anyone's here.

Quote:

Oh dear. Is it permissible to take a cheap shot at any individual? Or only organizAtions?

Always permissible, but usually ill advised.

Quote:

Can you name anyone who is wrong about EV'rything?

Once again, your irony meter needs adjusting.

As for your comments on literary criticism, above, I generally agree. Although, in the main, I also share your views on Marx and Freud, I cannot share the simplistic dismissal of every facet of their thought or intellect, as it's far too Manichean for me. That's a beat that almost everyone bleats to.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 17 Nov 11 | 08:39AM by Absquatch.

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

> Apropos of descending to the low level you
> mention, I would argue that I've seldom, if ever,
> done so here, nor do I ever recall offering a
> disproportionate reaction to anyone, but many
> others would likely differ--which brings us right
> back to the subjectivity involved in all these
> evaluations. You're right, though, about the
> hazards of overdoing any one approach. Profanity,
> for instance, has completely lost its edge in our
> modern age, which is a regrettable loss, I think.

No offence, but I think (as you point out) that you would be in a minority of one in that regard. If your intention is otherwise, then I think it is only fair to point out that many of your more - how shall I put this? - incendiary posts have the tone of someone frothing at the mouth with rage (maybe a mistaken impression) and are defined by snide attacks upon the recipient of your wrath (a less subjective one). You might disagree, but in my opinion you have a marked tendency of tackling the man and not the ball (or with the ball, if I am kind), which is entirely your decision, but to then deny so seems either massively disingenuous or shows a chronic lack of self awareness to my mind.

That's not to say that ALL your posts are as such, but let's just say that their occasional "over the top" qualities are one of the many reasons that I pop in here... They tickle me, but I'm afraid that they are not in anyway very reasonable. Of course, we all can be guilty of getting het-up over something we have a passion on, and I wouldn't separate myself from this charge, but in terms of frequency... I'm afraid that I think you'd probably win by a landslide... Or I did think so until TC turned up... I think you have a rival! Although I still prefer your posts.

> I would also add that I almost never hold grudges
> in these sorts of exchanges. I am always happy to
> start over, and there's not a person here with
> whom I would not be happy to resume cordial
> discussions. Getting into a lather over
> disembodied Internet personages, to the point of
> treating them as real persons who inflict real
> injuries, seems eminently silly, to me. That does
> not mean that I won't scrap tooth and nail in a
> given exchange, as needed, but such scrapes leave
> no lasting impressions.

I couldn't agree more.

> So far as the latter goes, I will
> happily pit my knowledge of the subject--and
> particularly of its history--against yours or
> anyone's here.

Oooo... should we be scared?! From what I remember you struggled to cope with exhibiting any understanding of the scientific method last time we broached this subject. Again we must bow our heads at your well know modesty in your own achievements. You might remember giving us all a sound thrashing, but I, for one, don't... I'm not going to revisit old threads here, as frankly I'm not that interested, but "knowledge" doesn't necessarily indicate an understanding.

Which all goes to show that we can never know ourselves (which in turn reminds me of the excellent novel One, No One and One Hundred Thousand) nor do we ever share a unified reality. You recently shared your memories with us of a past discussion (a past thread about Creationism v Science, I assume) telling of your perception of being attacked by hungry hyenas or some such unflattering metaphor... Which is not how I remember it at all (I seem to recall a pride of noble lions striping the meat from the twitching carcass of a dead hippo). TBH I remember a fairly evenly balanced, if heated, discussion. Certainly you weren't alone in your opinion. And nor was I. By suggesting that we ganged up on you, you seem to be suggesting that we were organised in our argument (blatantly not true) or that we were being somehow unfair... Again, untrue. The fact is if you or I or anyone else posts any thought on here (or I'd argue anywhere else) then we all have a right to reply... If more than one of us does so, then fair dues... As for the topic being closed down, well I don't see why it was... But it had probably run its course by then anyway... From what i remember, we all had fairly strong opinions on the subject and little was going to be achieved by it. If you really got barred from the forums, I can only state that if this place was a democracy, then I'd have voted against such a motion... Anyway, like an illegal migrant, you snuck back in...

Of course I'm equally guilty. I have no idea what you or anyone else here is like nor should I make any assumptions about anyone from their posts. My intention here is not to personally sleight you, as I think/hope my tone must make clear, but it is worth reiterating, I usually enjoy your posts immensely, but as you brought yourself into the thread and tangentially I have been involved in past heated discussions, I feel that it is a subject worth commenting on.

English Assassin:

To waste as little time on this as possible....

Quote:

No offence, but I think (as you point out) that you would be in a minority of one in that regard. If your intention is otherwise, then I think it is only fair to point out that many of your more - how shall I put this?-- incendiary posts have the tone of someone frothing at the mouth with rage (maybe a mistaken impression) and are defined by snide attacks upon the recipient of your wrath (a less subjective one).

As I mentioned, one tends to remember the more dramatic things, and not to remember the less dramatic ones. It's the same sort of error one makes after reading of a series of shark attacks and becoming morbidly afraid of the sea, while continuing to drive carelessly during one's mundane daily commute.

At any rate, your perception is selective, and, not surprisingly, you fail to provide any specific examples. Even if you did, then I am sure that they would be wrenched completely out of context, and with no attention paid whatsoever to the tone of others, which might have inspired my own. I also suspect that, like most, you don't entirely understand what an ad hominem attack really is. If you did, then you'd know that I never engage in it.

Quote:

in terms of frequency [of controversial posts)... I'm afraid that I think you'd probably win by a landslide...

I have the advantage of the longer view, as I've been reading and posting here for ten years. If you had, as well, or if you were to pay less selective attention, then you'd not only see how incorrect you are, but, again, you'd also have a better sense of context.

Quote:

Oooo... should we be scared?! From what I remember you struggled to cope with exhibiting any understanding of the scientific method last time we broached this subject. Again we must bow our heads at your well know modesty in your own achievements. You might remember giving us all a sound thrashing, but I, for one, don't... I'm not going to revisit old threads here, as frankly I'm not that interested, but "knowledge" doesn't necessarily indicate an understanding.

I gather that this sort of sarcasm is an example of the eminent reasonableness that you and others here ostensibly embody, in contrast to me? All I did was make a simple declarative statement that I would gladly pit my understanding of science and scientific method against anyone here, and this is the sort of reply it inspires. That speaks for itself, I think. And yet, if I were to match its aggression, and to reply to such remarks in the tone they deserve, then I would be labeled the frother. Hypocrisy and double standards... *yawns* ... what else is new in the Internet world?

Anyway, to answer your question, if the caliber of understanding you displayed in the science debate is any indication, then yes, you should be scared. Don't worry, though: As I mentioned, I am not going to revisit that subject here. And, since condescension tends to breed condescension--notice a pattern, here? ;-) --I'll merely suggest that you read some Nietzsche, some T.S. Kuhn, the introductory chapters to Morris Berman's Re-Enchantment of the World and, more recently, a couple of titles by the mathematician E. Brian Davies.

As to your particular memories of that science thread, I don't intend to research it for verification, either, but I don't recall having a single ally in that debate--not that I needed one. As for the remainder of your memories and your (mis)characterization of what happened there, my own memory is that they are as selective and inaccurate as your characterization of my overall contributions to this forum.

Quote:

My intention here is not to personally sleight you.

Please, be serious. Your comment on the science debate drips with sarcasm, you compare me to a frothing animal, you also compare me to an "illegal migrant (sic)*", and you ooze condescension in your repeated assertions that my posts entertain, "tickle", and otherwise "amuse" you. If you can't see any of that as a personal slight, then, as you both say and demonstrate, self-knowledge and awareness indeed don't come easily.

At any rate, I started this thread to explain my personal philosophy of "criticism" in a very broad and general sense, and to offer others an opportunity to state their philosophies of criticism, as well as their agreement or disagreement with some of the brief definitions I posed. I did not create it to put myself on trial, or to offer it as a referendum on the nature and quality of my contributions here. If no one wishes to respect the original intention of the thread, then I'd request that it remain dormant.

* I did not "sneak" back into here, by the way. I have made several allusions to my previous account in my later posts.

Postscript:

I did take another look at the closed "Science/Dawkins" thread, and, except for the closure, it wasn't as bad as I recall it being, on any side. So, my memory is at least as faulty others', in this regard. There must have been other threads here like it that I am remembering, but I don't have the time or inclination to find them. Anyway, I retract my "hyenas" comment as to that particular thread, with apologies.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 18 Nov 11 | 05:40PM by Absquatch.

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

> I have the advantage of the longer view, as I've
> been reading and posting here for ten years. If
> you had, as well, or if you were to pay less
> selective attention, then you'd not only see how
> incorrect you are, but, again, you'd also have a
> better sense of context.

Of course not every post is as aggressive. Far from it. I'd just say that they are noticeable. Let's be fair, it's not just me who has noticed it.

> Anyway, to answer your question, if the caliber of
> understanding you displayed in the science debate
> is any indication, then yes, you should be scared.
> Don't worry, though: As I mentioned, I am not
> going to revisit that subject here. And, since
> condescension tends to breed condescension--notice
> a pattern, here? ;-) --I'll merely suggest that
> you read some Nietzsche, some T.S. Kuhn, the
> introductory chapters to Morris Berman's
> Re-Enchantment of the World and, more recently, a
> couple of titles by the mathematician E. Brian
> Davies.

Interesting, for someone who likes to celibate CAS' autodidactism, you seem to want to prescribe a reading list onto others... :) And isn't Rand a bit like Nietzsche? Actually I like Fred... But I prefer Max Stirner.

But really, not once in our previous debate did you make a coherent argument stemming from your own intellect (which I don't doubt), instead (as above) you name drop some academics, who may or may not (probably not) back up your opinion. We both know the academic habit of taking some disparate texts then applying them to a topic of your own choosing... Anyway, I take you by your word and I shall forever assume that the above authors see no difference between the scientific method and Creationist method...

But regardless, I personally appreciate those who exhibit creative thinking that is a synthesis of their own reading and learning coupled with their own personality and thinking, rather than the regurgitating of academia...

> As to your particular memories of that science
> thread, I don't intend to research it for
> verification, either, but I don't recall having a
> single ally in that debate--not that I needed one.
> As for the remainder of your memories and your
> (mis)characterization of what happened there, my
> own memory is that they are as selective and
> inaccurate as your characterization of my overall
> contributions to this forum.

No, I wouldn't say you characterization in that thread is typical of your characterization in the forum as a whole or the majority of your posts. I don't think I said that and if I did then it was unfair of me to say so.

> Please, be serious. Your comment on the science
> debate drips with sarcasm, you compare me to a
> frothing animal, you also compare me to an
> "illegal migrant (sic)*", and you ooze
> condescension in your repeated assertions that my
> posts entertain, "tickle", and otherwise "amuse"
> you. If you can't see any of that as a personal
> slight, then, as you both say and demonstrate,
> self-knowledge and awareness indeed don't come
> easily.

> * I did not "sneak" back into here, by the way. I
> have made several allusions to my previous account
> in my later posts.

Ha! All unintended. I don't suspect you to believe that, but you do seem to have a bit of a persecution complex... just an observation... albeit unkind one... My 'sneaking in like an illegal immigrant' comment is a case in point and was hardly meant as a sleight on you, but an attempt (maybe a failed attempt..) at a humorous remark of the sheer ludicrousness of you being barred from these forums... It's not ALL about you, you know! :)

Okay, my 'tickled' remark was a bit condescending... apologies for that. Obviously it takes two or more to make a flame war and the aggression and biting wit of these forums does genuinely amuse the fuck out of me. I read these forums for two reasons: a) the knowledge on CAS and CAS related subjects of its denizens and b) the volatile nature of the debates. Is it condescending to politicians to enjoy a barbed political debate between two war horses? case in point was the previous thread that started off as a humble enquiry for so and so's contact details, but in less than a page turned into a load of bile about a much repeated nothing is a case in point... It was funny, especially juxtaposed with the sad reminder of mortality...

Anyway, I don't intend to re-spark the Creationism debate nor get into a flame war, instead I'll get back on-topic and ask where does Lovecraft's celebrated essay: 'History of Supernatural Horror' fit on the critical spectrum? It's certainly highly personal and biased, yet it is considered by many to be the starting point in all discussion on Horror and seems responsible for the endless modern usage of the word Weird as a substitute for the word Horror.

The English Assassin Wrote:
> [W]here does Lovecraft's
> celebrated essay: 'History of Supernatural Horror'
> fit on the critical spectrum? It's certainly
> highly personal and biased, yet it is considered
> by many to be the starting point in all discussion
> on Horror and seems responsible for the endless
> modern usage of the word Weird as a substitute for
> the word Horror.

Having just read this post, I'm not at all sure my thoughts on this will be coherent at this point, but I'll take an off-the-cuff shot at this, if you don't mind.

First, that last statement is, to some degree, true (I think), but it goes beyond that to the long-standing argument made by Mrs. Radcliffe and Sir Devendra P. Varma all the way to Boris Karloff and Christopher Lee of the difference between "horror" and "terror". Lovecraft himself addresses this now and again in his essay, drawing the difference between the genuinuely "weird" and that which is the "mundanely gruesome", or which is based in real (albeit highly unusual and disturbing) type of tale. Joshi, for one, has stated that he prefers "weird" because it is not as restrictive as such terms as "horror", "the supernatural", "ghost stories", and the like, yet not as broad as, say, Aickman's "strange stories". Ramsey Campbell has made the observation that not all horror is weird, and not all weird is horror, as well. These are, of course, only the tip of a very large iceberg, but they should give an indication of how this argument ranges far beyond Lovecraft's use of the term.

As to where HPL's essay itself fits (the title, incidentally, is "Supernatural Horror in Literature")... really, it is an historical survey of the field more than anything (which may be where the title given in the post above comes from), with several bits of critical theorizing added at points where they seem (or at least seemed to him) particularly appropriate. Like his tales "The Unnamable" and "Pickman's Model", it was part of his working out of his final aesthetic theory on the weird or supernatural tale... which, ultimately, didn't have to be supernatural to achieve many of the same effects. Even August Derleth saw this, and made note of it in his introduction to his Arkham House volume, Someone in the Dark, where he spoke of how the non-supernatural cosmic horror of HPL (and, given the context, particularly his own renderings of that) utilized many of the same motifs, techniques, and shadings as the classic ghost story or even the Gothic tale. (Of course, Derleth was much more inclined to this than even HPL -- who was greatly influenced by his knowledge of these types of writing -- given his own religious background and tendency toward spiritualism; but nonetheless this is one of the times when he makes a valid point.)

I think that, while you are right that it is seen as such a "starting point" (or even, I would argue, a center) in if not all then at least the majority of such discussions, I think this is a mistake... though not as bad a one as one might fall into. (Relying on Peter Haining as an infallible guide, for instance.) It is indeed biased, as his scanting of Le Fanu, Collins, Dickens, and several others shows; yet it remains one of the best brief examinations of the traditions from their earliest examples to his own day. And even without the bias, HPL didn't have access to (or possibly awareness of) a number of other figures in the field; so it should by no means be seen as comprehensive. Even such a thing as the three-volume Supernatural Literature of the World: An Encyclopedia cannot quite make that claim.

Nonetheless, I think it is an important contribution to the critical study of the field, and should be seen as one of the primary texts in such a survey. Another, in my view, would be Jack Sullivan's Elegant Nightmares: The English Ghost Story from Le Fanu to Blackwood, which takes quite a different theoretical approach, but also provides some very valuable information and thought-provoking insights. And some of Smith's bits on the subject, such as "Atmosphere in Weird Fiction" and "The Philosophy of the Weird Tale", though brief (the latter is only a short paragraph, and is actually an excerpt from his Black Book) are also worth considering. Some of Aickman's thoughts on the subject, such as bits from his introductions to the Fontana series, would also be helpful in balancing the picture, as would M. R. James' various comments on the subject.

On the other hand, Lovecraft's essay does bring in a number of writers who are now largely forgotten, but who did some pieces worth reading. Even such a minor entry as Leland Hall's Sinister House is not entirely unworthy of seeking out; though many might balk at much in Bulwer's pieces in the field. (Personally, though I find portions of both Zanoni and A Strange Story a bit dry and too dependent on the theories of occultism, I also quite enjoyed them... perhaps because I had been prepared by so much negative criticism in advance.) And as for reading, say, the entirety of Varney... well, unless you, too, have that "Chesterfieldian sense of honor", I wouldn't suggest it, even for a better understanding of how the field floriated (or, in this case, produced some shabby underbrush) at the height of its popularity....

As a personal observation -- and others, who are better informed, may disagree with me -- it seems to me that even the majority of Lovecraftians who examine his works, especially those who do work concerning the writers and works which may have influenced him, neglect the bulk of the things he mentions in his essay, tending only to focus on such writers as Poe, the "Big Four", Hawthorne, and a handful of others. There are, of course, exceptions to this, but in general it seems to me to be the case. I think it is high time that those who do take Lovecraft seriously enough to give him critical attention look into a wider range of those he read and may have been influenced or inspired by, from the Graeco-Roman classics to the Munsey magazines (and their brethren) to the writers of the Queen Anne and Georgian periods (which have a lot more to offer in this respect than I think has been taken into account), to this broader selection of writings from the field of weird fiction. Now, no one single person is likely to be able to encompass such a huge amount of reading material (the pulp magazines alone, given the amount he read during his life, would be a daunting task even for someone with nothing else to do), but at least some attempt should be made to widen the scope of such research. Not only is this likely to uncover a great deal which has previously been overlooked where Lovecraft himself has been concerned, but it is also likely to bring back long-forgotten pieces which may be of interest in other respects to readers' sphere of awareness.

Sorry for the digression; this was just something which has been bugging me for some time....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 20 Nov 11 | 01:10PM by jdworth.

Absquatch wrote (and quoted):

*** Quote:
but I thought the title "Call of Cthulhooh" was a bit less dull and pompous than the above.

Oh, dear, didn't you appreciate my ironic reference to Northrop Frye? Or didn't you catch it, more like? ***

Mea curpa. I thought it was dull; it was actually Canadian.

*** Quote:
You obviously know little about psychology, but then you know little about science. Be warned: there are shocks in store.

A puzzling statement, as you could not possibly be aware of what I do or do not know about psychology or science. ***

I could draw conclusions from text:

*** To be clear, I do have great respect for Freud, though it may not seem so. He was a brave pioneer, a profound thinker, and he did the best he could with the materials and knowledge available to him. ***

He did his best to create a Kult. And succeeded. To launch a Crews missive (and you can't accuse him of not knowing the texts):

*** Since the appearance of 'Analysis Terminable' in 1980, I had repeatedly made the same two-pronged argument: that Freud's scientific and ethical standards were abysmally low and that his brainchild was, and still is, a pseudoscience... Whereas the original objectors to 'Analysis Terminable' in 1980 had flatly denied my entire case against psychoanalysis, these recent statements mostly took the plaintive form of 'yes, but...' Although virtually all of my charges were conceded in one letter or another, each correspondent clung to some mitigating point that might justify the continuation of psychoanalytic business as usual... Step by step, we are learning that Freud has been the most overrated figure in the entire history of science and medicine--one who wrought immense harm through the propagation of false etiologies, mistaken diagnoses, and fruitless lines of inquiry... ***

Confessions of a Freud-Basher

*** The Freud wars are indeed over. (Just ask any research psychologist who isn’t also a psychoanalyst.)
***

Freud & Cocaine: An Exchange, NYRB, November 10, 2011

In the SCIence of psychology (as opposed to th' carny sideshow), Binet or Wundt did his best "with the materials and knowledge available." Compare Fraud with Chuck D. (i.e., the estimable Charles Darwin). CD knew nothing of genes or DNA, but he still laid the foundations of modern biology. Or SOME of 'em. Not that he ultimately mattered: Darwinism does not depend on Darwin. In Fraudeanism and Sharxism, Ziggy and Karl matter maximally. I think that's part of the appeal of those ideologies: they were invented by megalomaniac charlatans, so they're readily exploitable by later megalomaniacs and charlatans. As Crews' Postmodern Pooh v. cleverly demonstrates. OK, THIS was aimed at Darwinists:

*** Renee Francis, who has "specialized in the application of scientific rigor to the study of children's literature", deploys sociobiology and biopoetics in a piece "Gene/Meme Covariation in Ashdown Forest: Pooh and the Consilience of Knowledge". ***

But part of what's silly about "the application of scientific rigor" to literature is that science is currently too feeble for the task. A short story is actually much more complex than a star. That's why science can say a LOT about stars and, at present, v. LITTLE about short stories (involving, as they do, deep'n'difficult topics like Language and the Brain).

*** So far as the latter goes, I will happily pit my knowledge of the subject--and particularly of its history--against yours or anyone's here. ***

Is that an allusion to science's murky'n'mephitic origins in Magic(k)...? If so, yes, pace Dick D. (i.e., the egregious Richard Dawkins), the history of science is far from a simple matter of Truth vs Superstition, Reason vs Irrationality, Free Thought vs Authority, and Openness vs Obscurantism. Science is far from that NOW, as Dicky D. himself proves... But that doesn't justify support for CAS's know-nothingism:

*** 1. What I find most refreshing about CAS's perspective is its epistemological humility. Others would do well to emulate it. ***

Much as I like CAS's line as literature, I'm not sure it IS so humble to announce that "All human thought, all science, all religion, is the holding of a candle to the night of the universe." Not even sure it avoids self-refutation. CAS obviously thinks he understands the universe well enough to know humans can't understand it ("All humans are fools," said the human.) I'm reminded of what Comte said about stars:

*** On the subject of stars, all investigations which are not ultimately reducible to simple visual observations are ... necessarily denied to us. While we can conceive of the possibility of determining their shapes, their sizes, and their motions, we shall never be able by any means to study their chemical composition or their mineralogical structure ... Our knowledge concerning their gaseous envelopes is necessarily limited to their existence, size ... and refractive power, we shall not at all be able to determine their chemical composition or even their density... I regard any notion concerning the true mean temperature of the various stars as forever denied to us. ***

And it DOES seem obvious that you can never analyse something you can't touch or sample. But Comte was wrong and so, I suggest,'ll CAS prove to be. There may even be a hidden grandiosity'n'arrogance in CAS's dismissal of science: "Unlike YOU, I'm big and wise enough to know how small and ignorant I am."

*** Quote:
Can you name anyone who is wrong about EV'rything?

Once again, your irony meter needs adjusting. ***

Mea curpa.

*** As for your comments on literary criticism, above, I generally agree. Although, in the main, I also share your views on Marx and Freud, I cannot share the simplistic dismissal of every facet of their thought or intellect, as it's far too Manichean for me. That's a beat that almost everyone bleats to. ***

I like simplistic dismissal. Gives me more time for gay porn. And I like the line about Freud being both correct and original... but never at the same time. E.g., the subconscious is a fascinating and important topic, but you don't need Fraudeanism to tell you so.

*** As three of the unpublished New York Review correspondents put it, Freud proved once and for all that unconscious beliefs and emotions play a large role in our behavior; that the human mind is at once capable of the clearest distinctions and the most devious twists and that that mental illness stems in large part from an imbalance within the human being between real and ideal, between our rational and irrational selves, and between what we want to do and what we have to do. These and similar formulations were noteworthy for their high quotient of generality and vagueness, approaching, in freedom from determinate content, the perfect vacuum achieved by the historian and Freud apologist Peter Gay, who has characterized Freud's "central idea" as the proposition that 'every human is continuously, inextricably, involved with others...' It is hard to dispute any of these statements about 'humans', but it is also hard to see why they couldn't be credited as easily to Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, or Nietzsche--if not indeed to Jesus or St. Paul--as to Freud. Was it really Freud who first disclosed such commonplaces? ***

Confessions of a Freud-Basher

*** Both men [i.e. Fraud and Sharx] may have had a deleterious effect on our civilization... ***

Unpleasant example here from two Fraudeans who are "feminists and proud of it":

*** Bass and Davis now insist on the “compassionate” character of their book. Among accused parents, however, The Courage to Heal is known with good reason as The Courage to Hate. “First they steal everything else from you,” it says, “and then they want forgiveness too? Let them get their own…. It is insulting to suggest to any survivor that she should forgive the person who abused her.” Instead, the authors prescribe a cultivation of rage:

A little like priming the pump, you can do things that will get your anger started. Then, once you get the hang of it, it’ll begin to flow on its own…. You may dream of murder or castration. It can be pleasurable to fantasize such scenes in vivid detail. Wanting revenge is a natural impulse, a sane response. Let yourself imagine it to your heart’s content…. Suing your abuser and turning him in to the authorities are just two of the avenues open…. Another woman, abused by her grandfather, went to his deathbed and, in front of all the other relatives, angrily confronted him right there in the hospital. ***

Thanks for the Memories, Frederick Crews, NYRB, February 16, 1995

As I said to Radovarl: the Kult's "not a TRADITIONAL religion, but it's certainly retained all the ancient traditions of hypocrisy, manipulation and moneygrubbing." I'll add "and malevolence."

---

“The true independent is he who dwells detached and remote from the little herds as well as from the big herd. Affiliating with no group or cabal of mice or monkeys, he is of course universally suspect.” — The Black Book of Gore Vidal.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 21 Nov 11 | 04:13AM by treycelement.

Thank you, jdworth, for such a splendid overview of critical works on the subject... You caused me to add several rather expensive tomes to my already heaving amazon wish list! :)

You are quite welcome. Though, just to be a bit impish, there are many more out there which could be suggested.....

I would heartily recommend Varma's Gothic Flame. Contemporary lit-crits who specialize in the Gothic tend to sniff at it as being "old-fashioned", which is precisely why The Gothic Flame should be read, and their work ignored.

A more recent study of the Gothic, Linda Bayer-Berenbaum's book The Gothic Imagination: Expansion in Gothic Literature and Art, is slim and sometimes a little glib, but highly perceptive. Her book is unusual, at least in my experience, in that it examines and contrasts formal elements of Gothic architecture with the literary Gothic.

Finally, although it is not about "weird" literature, per se, the finest work of criticism I have ever read is Roger Cardinal's Figures of Reality: A Perspective on the Poetic Imagination.

Cardinal is a superb stylist and an acute reader. Although he is critical, he genuinely loves literature and the particular works he examines. His aim is to illuminate, and not to obfuscate. Although he admits to being influenced by phenomenological critics, such as Bachelard, his aim is not to fit the works he examines onto any given Procrustean bed of "theory". Cardinal keeps himself properly in the background, except to admit from time to time his own subjectivity and his emotional reactions, which he nowhere confuses with "the truth". Most important, he has no axe to grind, theoretical or personal, except in favor of imaginative literature as a whole, of which "weird" literature is only a small subset.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 22 Nov 11 | 06:51PM by Absquatch.

Yes, Varma's book is, to me, one of the best of the pieces on the Gothic I've read; highly readable, and often very perceptive. He carried some of this work into the set of the "Northanger" novels he did for the Folio Society (if memory serves, it was that organization which brought out that set, yes?), expanding on some of his comments along the way.

> A more recent study of the Gothic, Linda
> Bayer-Berenbaum's book The Gothic Imagination:
> Expansion in Gothic Literature and Art, is slim
> and sometimes a little glib, but highly
> perceptive. Her book is unusual, at least in my
> experience, in that it examines and contrasts
> formal elements of Gothic architecture with the
> literary Gothic.

That sounds interesting, and something I ought to look up. A briefer piece which compared these, and looked at the significance of one to the other, is the introduction to Jack C. and Barbara H. Wolf's Ghosts, Castles, and Victims: Studies in Gothic Terror (the cover reads Tales of Gothic Horror, so you may have to look for it under that alternate version). That's an interesting little anthology looking at the history of the Gothic tale, with selections from many of the classic novels in the field, as well as later stories which followed in the Gothic vein (though not, historically speaking, strictly Gothic works themselves). It was also a Fawcett Crest paperback, and if you're interested, can be found quite cheaply at many sites dealing with second-hand books.

Speaking of paperback essays on the subject, Ronald Spector's introduction to his Seven Masterpieces of Gothic Horror isn't at all a bad introduction to that genre, and the works included (Walpole's The Castle of Otranto; Reeves' The Old English Baron; "Mistrust", by Matthew Gregory Lewis; "The White Old Maid", by Nathaniel Hawthorne; "The Heir of Mondolfo", by Mary Shelley; "The Fall of the House of Usher", by Poe; and Le Fanu's "Carmilla"), make it quite a nice little historical anthology of the field.

Along the same lines, though much more extensive, is The Evil Image, an anthology looking at the development of the Gothic (or Gothic-desended) tale for a 200-year span (Defoe to King), edited and with a rather good introduction, by Patricia L. Skarda and Nora Crow Jaffe. Each of these would be good places to get some idea of the historical development of this particular branch of the field.

I have heard of Figures of Reality, but for some reason never got around to reading it. Yet another I need to add to my collection. Thank you for mentioning it....

Another fine anthology with an excellent introduction on the subject of the Gothic that I would recommend is G.R. Thompson's Romantic Gothic Tales, 1790-1840. Thompson's introduction is thorough and outstanding, and he creates an interesting taxonomy of the Gothic, although his treatment of the "terror" versus "horror" distinction is a little eccentric.

Figures of Reality is marvelous, but those who dislike or are uninterested in German Romanticism or Surrealism should steer clear. I should add that the book was not particularly well received by Cardinal's fellow literary critics, which is another strong recommendation on its behalf.

Definitely going to have to look both of these up. Again, thank you for the recommendations....