For Chris Barker

"Chris Barker" <hauntedHIDEOUSDEATHTOSPAMMERSriver.TakeThisOut@waitrose.com> wrote in message news:<us6dnVJLYOLmwQSiRVn-gA.TakeThisOut@brightview.com>...

 >
 > In my own case, for example, I have been extremley impressed that
 > despite the fact they vehemently disagree with the controversial opinion
 > that I have formed about M R James, they have never once let that difference
 > of opinion cloud their judgement on other dealings we have had. It's a
 > testament to their inate professionalism.
 >
Hi Chris,
I must have missed this...can you give me a condensed version of
your opinion of M.R. James? I would be intersted to compare it to my
own impressins.
Best,
Charles Cunningham<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: For Chris Barker 

"Charles Cunningham" <cunnincx DeleteThis @jmu.edu> wrote in message
news:910d6026.0310310846.60a118b1@posting.google.com...
 > "Chris Barker" <hauntedHIDEOUSDEATHTOSPAMMERSriver DeleteThis @waitrose.com> wrote in
message news:<us6dnVJLYOLmwQSiRVn-gA DeleteThis @brightview.com>...
 >
  > >
  > > In my own case, for example, I have been extremley impressed that
  > > despite the fact they vehemently disagree with the controversial opinion
  > > that I have formed about M R James, they have never once let that
difference
  > > of opinion cloud their judgement on other dealings we have had. It's a
  > > testament to their inate professionalism.
  > >
 > Hi Chris,
 > I must have missed this...can you give me a condensed version of
 > your opinion of M.R. James? I would be intersted to compare it to my
 > own impressins.
 > Best,
 > Charles Cunningham

Hi:

I don't want to repeat in detail the specific arguments about James's
sexuality and cruelty (which are featured respectively in the publications
PLAGARISM & PEDERASTY and WEIRDLY SUPERNATURAL 2) but I believe that in his
work James's betrays many powerful, barely suppressed urges. However, I am
happy to expand upon the wider issues e.g. why I hold such a forceful
opinion.

An author inescapably reveals something of themself through their work. I
was always taught to tease apart allusions / imagery / preoccupations when
critically evaluating prose - whether it be this Orwellian metaphor or that
Joycian ambiguity - and then to reassemble the references into a brighter,
more visible whole. Unfortunately this clinical (or illuminating) approach
will sometimes infuriate the romancers and
idolators; the true scholar, however, rarely takes offence. Hence my
comment about Messrs Rowlands and Longhorn; both of whom, I believe, hold
degrees; and both of whom, to my mind, possess healthy and tolerant
perspectives.

Some fans of Elvis furiously attack anyone who might dare suggest that 'the
King' was overweight and pumped full of drugs when he died. You can show
them authentic footage of a bloated corpse being carried into a mortuary and
an autopsy drug list as long as your arm, but they will still cry
"conspiracy!". But just who are these self-styled defenders of whatever
faith? Respected
journalists? Learned academics? Alas not. They are invariably homegrown
experts, or fan-club groupies, identifiable by their (Star) Trekkie habits
and duffle-coats. Another example. Yoko Ono has dedicated her life to
sweeping aside negative perspectives about John Lennon whilst trying to
portray him as something he clearly was not. Her motivation is slightly
different. Not only does she wish to bathe in reflective glory, but she has
a son to think of, and a very wealthy empire to oversee. But really, is her
chocolate-box portrait of Lennon to be believed?

M R James has his own fanclub base. Realistically it stretches from Ashtree
Press to
Ghosts & Scholars via The Everlasting Club and takes in many publishers,
writers and anthologists.
Many a genre authority has nailed his or her reputation to the Jamesian
cross. Indeed, some have a vested interest in rejecting unflattering
speculation about James: he is still in copyright, after all; people still
make money
from printing his books. Those who produce Jamesian product might fear
income loss if the whisper were to spread about his darker psyche. And even
if they did allow for such a view, they would surely alienate the copyright
holders if they expressed it publicly, because the c holders are themselves
semi-distant relatives of the great man. After all, Alice Liddell had to
field an unwelcome barrage of speculation about Lewis Carroll's interest in
her.

An additional concern is that some who have long
championned James - or those who have spoken authoriatively on the
subject - have a strong vested interest in dismissing
unwelcome speculation: their reputation and integrity is at stake. People
might ask why they hadn't spotted these issues, or wonder they opted to
ignore or downplay them. I don't for one minute doubt that the intentions
were pure - I am sceptical that there has been any attempt to cover up
paedophilia, for example - but unquestionably, these issues *have* been very
hastily glossed over by people who want instead to perpetuate a clean,
wholesome myth. Many people want to believe that James was a hero from one
of his own tales but they don't want to allow for the fact that he may have
also been one of the villains.

Finally, there is the politics of envy. If Richard Dalby or Rosemary Pardoe
had discovered the
source tale for The Ashtree, then people like Christopher Roden would have
been falling over themsleves to rush into print. No doubt Roden would have
eulogised elegaically in All Hallows about a 'wondrous find' by way of
advance plugging the scoop. Instead of which .......well, you can read about
it on my website. No impartial person could view the Jamesian
Establishment's response without forming a low opinion about their
professionalism.

I understand that Sigmund Freud was an unpopular man and that by the time of
his death he had fallen out with practically every other professional in the
field. (Freud being a particularly apt person to mention in this context!)
But should mere popularity abscribe merit to his or indeed anyone else's
discoveries? No. Arguments ultimately win or fall by their individual merit.
Those who seek to suppress valid if unpopular speculation will inevitably be
judged harshly by history.

I am not nor have ever been in a 'James Gang'. I've always nurtured a
healthy cynicism about hero-worship whether it be for Montague Rhodes James
or anyone else. Indeed, many of my favourite writers - Evelyn Waugh, Harold
Pinter, Robert Aickman - were by all accounts miserable, waspish,
curmudgeonly people. To put them on a hallowed pedestal just because their
creative endeavours were important would be ridiculous.

When fan groups mushroom into existence they often cultivate pecking orders.
Tinpot academic status can be assumed or abscribed by arbitrary means. What,
for example, is a 'Violet Books Site Award'? Is it an important democratic
award process in which independently validated experts rate a website
according to a professionally agreed scale? Or is it merely an extension of
childish playground behaviour, in which one self-appointed princess or queen
(royal, not camp) bestows homemade badges upon a coterie of admirers? I am
familiar with the basis by which Investors In People or Quality Assurance
accreditation is given, but the basis for the presentation of many
'fan-based' accolades is both bizarre and highly amusing.

It is perfectly valid to comment on this issue in the context of merit-based
speculation. One of the most sinister aspects of incestuous dogma is that
pften some of those within a given cabal bitterly resent anyone from the
mainstream commenting upon 'their' religion. Unless, of course, the outsider
prostrates him or herself sycophantically at the altar and allows them to
paw their cloven hooves through the offering.

I agree wholeheartedly that M R James was a brilliant writer of ghost
stories. But I don't for one moment believe that he was a cuddly, gentle,
humble, sexless, benign demigod, or that I shouldn't read anything
subversive into his work. Cuddly people don't bite - and James's fiction
*does* bite, *savagely*. Indeed, the reason why those stories are *so*
bitingly effective is because James clearly fought hard to suppress some
very
powerful, dark urges.

I believe that it is irresponsible to take pleasure from James's horrors
without experiencing some of the guilt. Those who refute that there is
anything disturbing in James's work are in emotional denial. Whenever a
mainstream critic strays into
this weird backwater of genre fiction and alights upon M R James, they
invariably raise concerns about his repressed homosexuality. We need to ask
'why?' No one
cares if he might be gay. Who would? No, they worry that there might be
*more* going on
than 'just' homosexuality.

Inexcusably, some people say that James furnished his readers with a 'very
pleasant terror'. What, pray, is pleasant about a sinister preoccupation
with child murder?
Or even the individual cases of savagery e.g. the throat-slitting of a
mentally subnormal girl? No, James's tales present us with deeply
*un*pleasant
terrors. To believe otherwise is self-deceiving. Indeed, to brand the
stories as 'pleasant' is indicative of an affectation that wishes to empower
James's fiction with a cultured suavity that in actuality simply masks a
very dark pecadillo.

There. Quite enough speculation and controversy to galvanise the
eagerly-offended hypocrites in certain other newsgroups......... If you want
a comprehensive analysis of cruelty and sadism in the Jamesian
tale, I am afraid that you will have to procure a copy of WEIRDLY
SUPERNATURAL 2.....!

TTFN,

Chris
The Haunted River
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.users.waitrose.com/~hauntedriver" target="_blank">www.users.waitrose.com/~hauntedriver</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: For Chris Barker 

hello. i'm new to this discussion, but i've read Chris Barker's
pamphlet, also his stories, and I know MR James's stuff aswell, so
here goes:-

"Chris Barker" <hauntedHIDEOUSDEATHTOSPAMMERSriver.DeleteThis@waitrose.com> wrote in message news:<hbidnW0lUO7L-juiRVn-iQ.DeleteThis@brightview.com>...
 > I don't want to repeat in detail the specific arguments about James's
 > sexuality and cruelty (which are featured respectively in the publications
 > PLAGARISM & PEDERASTY and WEIRDLY SUPERNATURAL 2) but I believe that in his
 > work James's betrays many powerful, barely suppressed urges.

what, more so than any other writer of ghost stories? more so than,
say, Mr Oliver, whose stories you publish? more so than yourself?
fraid I don't quite buy this line of argument.

 > An author inescapably reveals something of themself through their work. I
 > was always taught to tease apart allusions / imagery / preoccupations when
 > critically evaluating prose - whether it be this Orwellian metaphor or that
 > Joycian ambiguity - and then to reassemble the references into a brighter,
 > more visible whole.

but that's not how your pamphlet comes across! [Sorry.]

 > Unfortunately this clinical (or illuminating) approach will sometimes
 > infuriate the romancers and idolators; the true scholar, however, rarely
 > takes offence. Hence my comment about Messrs Rowlands and Longhorn; both of
 > whom, I believe, hold degrees; and both of whom, to my mind, possess healthy
 > and tolerant perspectives.

does having a degree make that much difference? obviously, I suppose,
or you wouldn't have mentioned it. [er, why DID you mention it, if
you don't mind my asking?] oh, and before you ask, a 2:1, but not in
anything relevant . . . .

 > Some fans of Elvis furiously attack anyone who might dare suggest that 'the
 > King' was overweight and pumped full of drugs when he died. You can show
 > them authentic footage of a bloated corpse being carried into a mortuary and
 > an autopsy drug list as long as your arm, but they will still cry
 > "conspiracy!". But just who are these self-styled defenders of whatever
 > faith? Respected journalists? Learned academics? Alas not. They are
 > invariably homegrown experts, or fan-club groupies, identifiable by their
 > (Star) Trekkie habits and duffle-coats.

so, by the same token, just who are you? i'm not being funny here,
just pointing out that when you point the finger at someone else, four
more fingers point back at YOU. . . . and isn't it a bit showoffy
anyway, all this waving quals around?

 > M R James has his own fanclub base. Realistically it stretches from Ashtree
 > Press to Ghosts & Scholars via The Everlasting Club and takes in many
 > publishers, writers and anthologists. Many a genre authority has nailed his
 > or her reputation to the Jamesian cross. Indeed, some have a vested interest
 > in rejecting unflattering speculation about James: he is still in copyright,
 > after all; people still make money from printing his books. Those who
 > produce Jamesian product might fear income loss if the whisper were to
 > spread about his darker psyche. And even if they did allow for such a view,
 > they would surely alienate the copyright holders if they expressed it
 > publicly, because the c holders are themselves semi-distant relatives of the
 > great man. After all, Alice Liddell had to field an unwelcome barrage of
 > speculation about Lewis Carroll's interest in her.

not sure what the part about Alice and Lewis Carroll has to do with
it, other than to bring in the whole kiddy fiddling thing? but as for
James - i suppose if you're in print for like 100 years or whatever,
then your reputation can stand a few knocks in the small press, no?

 > An additional concern is that some who have long
 > championned James - or those who have spoken authoriatively on the
 > subject - have a strong vested interest in dismissing
 > unwelcome speculation: their reputation and integrity is at stake.

ah, but is that vested interest equal to your own in causing
controversy where none is generally thought to exist, though? again,
i don't mean to be rude, I'm just curious. . . .

 > people might ask why they hadn't spotted these issues, or wonder they opted
 > to ignore or downplay them. I don't for one minute doubt that the intentions
 > were pure - I am sceptical that there has been any attempt to cover up
 > paedophilia, for example - but unquestionably, these issues *have* been very
 > hastily glossed over by people who want instead to perpetuate a clean,
 > wholesome myth. Many people want to believe that James was a hero from one
 > of his own tales but they don't want to allow for the fact that he may have
 > also been one of the villains.

ok, maybe some people do look at him through rose tinted specs, but is
the way you look at him borne out by the evidence you present? i
don't think so, personally. but that's only my opinion. . . .

 > Finally, there is the politics of envy. If Richard Dalby or Rosemary Pardoe
 > had discovered the
 > source tale for The Ashtree, then people like Christopher Roden would have
 > been falling over themsleves to rush into print. No doubt Roden would have
 > eulogised elegaically in All Hallows about a 'wondrous find' by way of
 > advance plugging the scoop. Instead of which .......well, you can read about
 > it on my website. No impartial person could view the Jamesian
 > Establishment's response without forming a low opinion about their
 > professionalism.

i visited Ghosts and scholars website, it looks fine to me. lots of
links, resources and no snide sniping at the competition. [er, you
might like to think about that last in relation to your own site, Mr
Barker. . . . all that bitching is not particularly funny or
enlightening, and infact it just makes you looklike a saddo. . . .
which I'm sure is not the case.] the Ash Tree site could be updated
more often, but is okay, again it seems to get by without bitching.

 > I understand that Sigmund Freud was an unpopular man and that by the time of
 > his death he had fallen out with practically every other professional in the
 > field. (Freud being a particularly apt person to mention in this context!)
 > But should mere popularity abscribe merit to his or indeed anyone else's
 > discoveries? No. Arguments ultimately win or fall by their individual merit.
 > Those who seek to suppress valid if unpopular speculation will inevitably be
 > judged harshly by history.

rather grandiose here????? surely you don't suggest you are the new
Sik-mind Fraud?

 > When fan groups mushroom into existence they often cultivate pecking orders.
 > Tinpot academic status can be assumed or abscribed by arbitrary means. What,
 > for example, is a 'Violet Books Site Award'? Is it an important democratic
 > award process in which independently validated experts rate a website
 > according to a professionally agreed scale? Or is it merely an extension of
 > childish playground behaviour, in which one self-appointed princess or queen
 > (royal, not camp) bestows homemade badges upon a coterie of admirers? I am
 > familiar with the basis by which Investors In People or Quality Assurance
 > accreditation is given, but the basis for the presentation of many
 > 'fan-based' accolades is both bizarre and highly amusing.

ok, so does this approach follow through to awards e.g. the world
fantasy awards? and what does IIP have to do with the price of milk?

 > It is perfectly valid to comment on this issue in the context of merit-based
 > speculation. One of the most sinister aspects of incestuous dogma is that
 > pften some of those within a given cabal bitterly resent anyone from the
 > mainstream commenting upon 'their' religion. Unless, of course, the outsider
 > prostrates him or herself sycophantically at the altar and allows them to
 > paw their cloven hooves through the offering.

no, no, stop right there. this is just bad writing, florid,
overblown. [as per your fiction, which is plotted well enough but
could definitely stand some trimming when it comes to adjectives. . .
.. hope you don't mind my commenting on this, it just came to mind
while wading through the above!]

 > I agree wholeheartedly that M R James was a brilliant writer of ghost
 > stories. But I don't for one moment believe that he was a cuddly, gentle,
 > humble, sexless, benign demigod, or that I shouldn't read anything
 > subversive into his work.

intentionally subversive, or subliminal, or subconscious? or all 3!?

 > Cuddly people don't bite - and James's fiction *does* bite, *savagely*.
 > Indeed, the reason why those stories are *so* bitingly effective is because
 > James clearly fought hard to suppress some
 > very powerful, dark urges.

not at all clear actually. . . . or not to anyone but you, maybe!

 > I believe that it is irresponsible to take pleasure from James's horrors
 > without experiencing some of the guilt.

i'm sorry. this is just noise, and rather grandiloquent noise at
that. . . .

 > Those who refute that there is anything disturbing in James's work are in
 > emotional denial.

do you mean deny, rather than refute? a refutation usually implies
proof and therefore ought to be acceptable to your scholarly
requirements as laid out above. . . .

 > Whenever a
 > mainstream critic strays into
 > this weird backwater of genre fiction and alights upon M R James, they
 > invariably raise concerns about his repressed homosexuality. We need to ask
 > 'why?'

err. . . because for the last 75 years the preferred paradigm of
litcrit has been a Freudian one? and some people like to think they
understand Freud better than they actually do???

 > No one
 > cares if he might be gay.

no one but YOU, eh!!!!

 > Who would? No, they worry that there might be
 > *more* going on
 > than 'just' homosexuality.

again, do they?

 > Inexcusably, some people say that James furnished his readers with a 'very
 > pleasant terror'.

surely you must recognise the quotation here. . . .

 > What, pray, is pleasant about a sinister preoccupation
 > with child murder?

that's just not proven. . . .

 > Or even the individual cases of savagery e.g. the throat-slitting of a
 > mentally subnormal girl?

what, and no other writer ever wrote about nasty things? why assume
James really wanted to do what he has his villains and ghosts do?
this is the most specious part of your whole argument and it falls
down at the slightest examination. sorry, but it DOES!

 > No, James's tales present us with deeply
 > *un*pleasant
 > terrors. To believe otherwise is self-deceiving. Indeed, to brand the
 > stories as 'pleasant' is indicative of an affectation that wishes to empower
 > James's fiction with a cultured suavity that in actuality simply masks a
 > very dark pecadillo.

simply not proven, I'm afraid. . . .

 > There. Quite enough speculation and controversy to galvanise the
 > eagerly-offended hypocrites in certain other newsgroups.........

consider me galvanised then. . . .

k23e<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: For Chris Barker 

Obviously I am not going to dignify a post made by what appears to be an
anonymous 'sock-puppet
' with a proper response. The opinion it expresses is vague and
insubstantial. Certainly it cannot be accorded the status of an
'argument'. In fact the 'opinion' consists of nothing more than
a succession of unqualified personal jibes.

The sentiments contained therein strongly echo those raised previously by
Certain Parties. Either it *is* one of that Certain Party or it is in
obvious sympathy with them. In fact, the claim by this puppet that it has
*only now*
chanced across the various websites concerned (a.b.g.f, G&S, Ash Tree and
The Haunted River)
is a highly implausible one. Elsewhere it claims much familiarity with all
things Jamesian, my publications and of course Supernatural Tales.
(Strangely enough, there is no 'Karen' on our customer files.)

No, the post just doesn't fit together properly. Lies and
subterfuge appear to be jostling visibly beneath the surface. I've seen
similar sock-puppetry before in almost exactly the same style in this
newsgroup. I smell a rat.

'Karen' might simply be a sock puppet spoiler, designed to counteract the
kind praise that my stories have elicited in this newsgroup and in the
letters pages of ST. It seems possible that 'Karen' could be nothing more
than a jealous or embittered rival.Certain Parties have previously gone out
of their way to counteract praise in respect of *everything* I or The
Haunted River have ever done whenever it has been forthcoming. 'Karen's'
anonymous criticisms might be nothing more than part of the same relay race.

"Karen" does much to undermine the group with its
negative and seemingly anonymous habitses. If it wants to be
taken seriously it must de-cloakses, yes it must, and offer up well-reasoned
arguments. Not silly Hobbitt riddles.

For starters that would mean actually familiarising itself with the as-yet
unpublished article on James in the forthcoming issue of WEIRDLY
SUPERNATURAL, as opposed to dismissing it, ignorantly, in advance.

In the meantime, if anyone alive and identifiable wishes to discuss the
specific arguments
made about M R James in the previously published chapbook PLAGIARISM &
PEDERASTY in a
professional and responsible manner then I will happily correspond.

Chris Barker
(A real person)
THE HAUNTED RIVER
www.users.waitrose.com/~hauntedriver
 >> Stay informed about: For Chris Barker 

K23E raises some good points about your essay on MR James. I'd just
like to add a couple of related points of my own.

I think you misconstrue the expression "a pleasant terror". It does
not convey a view that James's ghost stories are in any way mild.
Quite the opposite in fact. A.E. Coppard meant much the same when he
spoke of "Fearful Pleasures", and Russell Kirk of "fearful joy". The
fact is, there is a pleasure in being frightened, which is why,
presumably, we read ghost and horror stories. The milder a ghost
story, the less pleasurable, at least for me! Which is why I've
always been a fan of James's ghost stories.

When James writes of a child murderer or a grisly murder of the
innocent, he is setting a moral context, not setting out some sort of
wish fulfillment fantasy. That fine Jamesian ANL Munby wrote a
classic tale about a child murderer, Herodes Redivivus. Can we
extrapolate that Munby was a pederast?

In my view, what James is doing is creating a moral context. There is
a moral fulfillment behind these tales that, I think, indicates
something of James's deeply religious views – thus, in Lost Hearts,
the murdered children take their revenge on the evil Mr Abney, and the
moral order is restored (the source of some relief or ‘pleasure' to
some of us readers!).

Cheers

James
 >> Stay informed about: For Chris Barker 

"Chris Barker" <hauntedHIDEOUSDEATHTOSPAMMERSriver.DeleteThis@waitrose.com> wrote in
message news:xeadnTwnJM844zCiRVn-tA@brightview.com...
> "James Doig" <james.doig.DeleteThis@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:a0927d9b.0311071437.6f182f46@posting.google.com...
> > I think you misconstrue the expression "a pleasant terror". It does
> > not convey a view that James's ghost stories are in any way mild.
> > Quite the opposite in fact. A.E. Coppard meant much the same when he
> > spoke of "Fearful Pleasures", and Russell Kirk of "fearful joy". The
> > fact is, there is a pleasure in being frightened, which is why,
> > presumably, we read ghost and horror stories. The milder a ghost
> > story, the less pleasurable, at least for me! Which is why I've
> > always been a fan of James's ghost stories.
> >
>
> I agree with the general point that in reading a ghost story the reader
> obtains a visceral thrill e.g. a pleasant terror. However, in the context
of
> the underlying themes in the work of some authors, I think that the
> description 'pleasant' can become both ominous and ironic. James's sexual
> interest in adolescent males and his fictional depictions of acts of
> violence has always made me uncomfortable. (I also have concerns about
> James's misogyny and his superiority complex).
>
> The particular term 'pleasant terror' has I believe been very lazily
> employed by successive parties when pushing Jamesian product. I remember
> squirming with discomfort when I first watched the Anglia TV documentary
> which bore that same title. I didn't find the unsettling musical score or
> the sinister view of an elderly schoolmaster glaring with cold malignance
> into the camera even faintly 'pleasant'.
>

You've struck on an interesting conundrum I often stumble over when trying
to convey my appreciation for a story that is not conducive to jollity. If
one says one "enjoyed" a story with unpleasantness in it, one gets into the
issue of whether one enjoyed the effectiveness of the story, or got his
jollies from grue, violence or terror. I am repelled by visual gore, yet I
"enjoyed" SAVING PRIVATE RYAN for its portrayals of the hopeless nightmares
and moral fog soldiers must blunder through, even when their overarching
cause is noble. How to express this in a word or two? I have always
struggled with this, and generally say something like "it's a good story" as
opposed to expressing pleasure of any kind. But there is that sense with
much horror fiction, especially ghost fiction, of being chilled in a way
that we know will pass and thus brings a smile with the shiver. Is this
pleasure? I think it is fair to say it is.

- Todd T.
 >> Stay informed about: For Chris Barker 

"Todd T" <tttNOSPAM DeleteThis @megapipe.net> wrote in message
news:1068341570.280106@cache6.usenetserver.com...
>
> "Chris Barker" <hauntedHIDEOUSDEATHTOSPAMMERSriver DeleteThis @waitrose.com> wrote in
> message news:xeadnTwnJM844zCiRVn-tA@brightview.com...
> > "James Doig" <james.doig DeleteThis @bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > news:a0927d9b.0311071437.6f182f46@posting.google.com...
> > > I think you misconstrue the expression "a pleasant terror". It does
> > > not convey a view that James's ghost stories are in any way mild.
> > > Quite the opposite in fact. A.E. Coppard meant much the same when he
> > > spoke of "Fearful Pleasures", and Russell Kirk of "fearful joy". The
> > > fact is, there is a pleasure in being frightened, which is why,
> > > presumably, we read ghost and horror stories. The milder a ghost
> > > story, the less pleasurable, at least for me! Which is why I've
> > > always been a fan of James's ghost stories.
> > >
> >
> > I agree with the general point that in reading a ghost story the reader
> > obtains a visceral thrill e.g. a pleasant terror. However, in the
context
> of
> > the underlying themes in the work of some authors, I think that the
> > description 'pleasant' can become both ominous and ironic. James's
sexual
> > interest in adolescent males and his fictional depictions of acts of
> > violence has always made me uncomfortable. (I also have concerns about
> > James's misogyny and his superiority complex).
> >
> > The particular term 'pleasant terror' has I believe been very lazily
> > employed by successive parties when pushing Jamesian product. I remember
> > squirming with discomfort when I first watched the Anglia TV documentary
> > which bore that same title. I didn't find the unsettling musical score
or
> > the sinister view of an elderly schoolmaster glaring with cold
malignance
> > into the camera even faintly 'pleasant'.
> >
>
> You've struck on an interesting conundrum I often stumble over when trying
> to convey my appreciation for a story that is not conducive to jollity.
If
> one says one "enjoyed" a story with unpleasantness in it, one gets into
the
> issue of whether one enjoyed the effectiveness of the story, or got his
> jollies from grue, violence or terror. I am repelled by visual gore, yet
I
> "enjoyed" SAVING PRIVATE RYAN for its portrayals of the hopeless
nightmares
> and moral fog soldiers must blunder through, even when their overarching
> cause is noble. How to express this in a word or two? I have always
> struggled with this, and generally say something like "it's a good story"
as
> opposed to expressing pleasure of any kind. But there is that sense with
> much horror fiction, especially ghost fiction, of being chilled in a way
> that we know will pass and thus brings a smile with the shiver. Is this
> pleasure? I think it is fair to say it is.
>
> - Todd T.
>

I agree, conundrum it is. I suppose the practical solution is to accord a
story the merit of excellence / brilliance / etcetera, but to then qualify
that with a suitably appropriate adjective e.g. disquietingly excellent,
sinisterly brilliant, grimly impressive.

Take Machen, for example. I would be unwilling to describe THE GREAT GOD PAN
as possessing a pleasing terror. Equally I would be unwilling to describe it
as beautiful, even though one could argue that aspects of Machen's prose are
beautiful. By their very nature the best ghost stories *must* possess a
frightening / subversive / harrowing element to them, which necessarily
requires a qualification of any positive literary praise. I suppose it must
also be linked to the fact that ghost stories represent a subgenre of 'pure'
mainstream prose.

I believe that those ghost or fantasy stories that are not underscored with
effective fear or horror can be fairly termed 'pleasant'. This might apply
to humorous / juvenile tales, spiritually uplifting fantasies and truly
poetic prose.

Returning to James, if his work had been described as possessing a
'thrilling terror' I would be far happier. Clearly his stories do send a
shiver down one's spine, and we the reader eagerly crave horrific revelation
after horrific revelation. Whilst James's denouements are not graphically
bloody, they are unflinchingly brutal and, in some cases, overtly sadistic.
Yet his work has often been portrayed as being upper middle class in its
delivery, in which benign academics tut-tut over the ungentlemanly horrors
unfolding before their eyes. I don't think that is enough to make the
stories 'pleasant', especially when one reflects upon the dark psychological
undercurrents that seem to be shaping the stories.

There were no whispers about Walter de la Mare's cruelty or his sexual
inclinations. Nor do we have no sinister smotherings of children or
throat-slittings of sexually active idiot girls in his ghost stories;
instead, there are vague ghosts weaving in and out of hauntingly beautiful
prose. I therefore believe that we can reasonably term WdlM's tales
'pleasant' in a way that we surely cannot when it comes to M R James.

TTFN,

Chris
 >> Stay informed about: For Chris Barker 

> throat-slittings of sexually active idiot girls

Which James ghost story are you refering to here, Chris?

Rick
 >> Stay informed about: For Chris Barker 

On 8 Nov 2003 21:47:45 -0800, james.doig DeleteThis @bigpond.com (James Doig)
wrote:

<Snip>

>The expression itself is ironic, I think. After all, how can
>experiencing terror or fear be pleasurable? L.P. Hartley understood
>the absurdity of it: "Even the most impassioned devotee of the ghost
>story would admit that the taste for it is slightly abnormal, a
>survival perhaps, from adolescence, a disease of deficiency suffered
>by those whose lives and imaginations do not react satisfactorily to
>normal experience and require an extra thrill."

I have never liked that quote from L.P. Hartley. Am I to feel like
Merricat Blackwood (in Shirley Jackson's We have always lived in the
castle) walking head down along the street while the rest of the town
stands in line on the other side staring at me? What language to use
to describe one who reads strange fiction; Abnormal, Disease,
Deficiency, Suffered. A survival from adolescence? Does this mean
that adolescents are naturally abnormal?

Surely all fiction that is worth reading, and I do read much more than
just ghostly or supernatural fiction anyway, is at least one step
removed from normal everyday experience and inspires the imagination
to look into aspects of the human condition that we may have
overlooked. If I was reading a book about normal everyday experience
then I would be reading about waking up in the morning, feeding the
cats, eating breakfast, blinking in the sunlight in the garden,
collecting the mail, taking out garbage, making love, laughing,
talking, etc etc. That would not really be very interesting in
itself.

I think that ghostly fiction is not that far removed from normal
experience anyway. When I go outside at night and stand in the middle
of these dark Mississippi woods that are still so strange to these
English eyes, and look up at the tall pines and see a full moon
glimmering through the branches and I hear the cries and chrrups of
the strange wildlife, then I feel a sense of what I feel when I read
ghost fiction. Ghost fiction is one step to the side of my normal
experience, in the same way that regular fiction is also one step to
the other side. It wouldnt be worth reading if it was not.

I feel that all fiction should inspire the imagination and that the
imagination that enjoys ghostly stories is not diseased but rather
open to more than the imagination that does not enjoy them. It is not
a deficiency, it is an extension. I would tend to agree with Aickman
when he says "I now do not merely believe but know that a quality of
the imagination is all that matters in life. I can proclaim it from
the heart."

Geoff
 >> Stay informed about: For Chris Barker 

"Christopher Roden" <ashtree.RemoveThis@ash-tree.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:n911rv85aa8j2b3nhmip6b2uhvq1canc2n@4ax.com...
> It seems that the discussion here is centering around the phrase
> 'pleasant terror', which is seemingly being attributed to M. R. James.
>
> He did not, in fact, use such a phrase, either in connection with his
> own writings, or those of others. What he did say (see 'Some Remarks
> on Ghost Stories', A PLEASING TERROR (Ashcroft, BC: Ash-Tree Press,
> 2001), p.475) followed a discussion of what George Borrow had
> described as the 'best ghost story in the world', sourced in Lope de
> Vega's EL PEREGRINO EN SU PATRIA. MRJ's comment was: 'Still, here you
> have a story written with the sole object of inspiring a pleasing
> terror in the reader; and as I think, that is the true aim of the
> ghost story.'
>
> Contextualizing the remark places the discussion in a somewhat
> different light, does it not?
>
> Christopher Roden
>
>

Not really. If that's what MRJ considered to be the objective of a ghos
story, then we can assume it is what he aimed for in his own stories, and we
can assume that he hoped his stories could be described in that way.

- Todd T.
 >> Stay informed about: For Chris Barker 

"GeoffreyW" <pennyroyalNOSPAM DeleteThis @bellsouth.net.INVALID> wrote in message
news:1672rvgrmedan3l4joknenkiq067asbnia@4ax.com...
> On 8 Nov 2003 21:47:45 -0800, james.doig DeleteThis @bigpond.com (James Doig)
> wrote:
>
> <Snip>
>
> >The expression itself is ironic, I think. After all, how can
> >experiencing terror or fear be pleasurable? L.P. Hartley understood
> >the absurdity of it: "Even the most impassioned devotee of the ghost
> >story would admit that the taste for it is slightly abnormal, a
> >survival perhaps, from adolescence, a disease of deficiency suffered
> >by those whose lives and imaginations do not react satisfactorily to
> >normal experience and require an extra thrill."
>
> I have never liked that quote from L.P. Hartley. Am I to feel like
> Merricat Blackwood (in Shirley Jackson's We have always lived in the
> castle) walking head down along the street while the rest of the town
> stands in line on the other side staring at me? What language to use
> to describe one who reads strange fiction; Abnormal, Disease,
> Deficiency, Suffered. A survival from adolescence? Does this mean
> that adolescents are naturally abnormal?
>
> Surely all fiction that is worth reading, and I do read much more than
> just ghostly or supernatural fiction anyway, is at least one step
> removed from normal everyday experience and inspires the imagination
> to look into aspects of the human condition that we may have
> overlooked. If I was reading a book about normal everyday experience
> then I would be reading about waking up in the morning, feeding the
> cats, eating breakfast, blinking in the sunlight in the garden,
> collecting the mail, taking out garbage, making love, laughing,
> talking, etc etc. That would not really be very interesting in
> itself.
>
> I think that ghostly fiction is not that far removed from normal
> experience anyway. When I go outside at night and stand in the middle
> of these dark Mississippi woods that are still so strange to these
> English eyes, and look up at the tall pines and see a full moon
> glimmering through the branches and I hear the cries and chrrups of
> the strange wildlife, then I feel a sense of what I feel when I read
> ghost fiction. Ghost fiction is one step to the side of my normal
> experience, in the same way that regular fiction is also one step to
> the other side. It wouldnt be worth reading if it was not.
>
> I feel that all fiction should inspire the imagination and that the
> imagination that enjoys ghostly stories is not diseased but rather
> open to more than the imagination that does not enjoy them. It is not
> a deficiency, it is an extension. I would tend to agree with Aickman
> when he says "I now do not merely believe but know that a quality of
> the imagination is all that matters in life. I can proclaim it from
> the heart."
>
> Geoff
>

Very well put. If the bone in us that resonates to a ghost story is a
diseased one, then it's fairly often diseased one way or another through a
large percentage of the population.

- Todd T.
 >> Stay informed about: For Chris Barker 

"Todd T" <tttNOSPAM.RemoveThis@megapipe.net> wrote in message
news:1068582623.417289@rh9cache2...
>
> "Christopher Roden" <ashtree.RemoveThis@ash-tree.bc.ca> wrote in message
> news:n911rv85aa8j2b3nhmip6b2uhvq1canc2n@4ax.com...

> > It seems that the discussion here is centering around the phrase
> > 'pleasant terror', which is seemingly being attributed to M. R. James.
> >
> > He did not, in fact, use such a phrase, either in connection with his
> > own writings, or those of others. What he did say (see 'Some Remarks
> > on Ghost Stories', A PLEASING TERROR (Ashcroft, BC: Ash-Tree Press,
> > 2001), p.475) followed a discussion of what George Borrow had
> > described as the 'best ghost story in the world', sourced in Lope de
> > Vega's EL PEREGRINO EN SU PATRIA. MRJ's comment was: 'Still, here you
> > have a story written with the sole object of inspiring a pleasing
> > terror in the reader; and as I think, that is the true aim of the
> > ghost story.'
> >
> > Contextualizing the remark places the discussion in a somewhat
> > different light, does it not?

> Not really. If that's what MRJ considered to be the objective of a ghos
> story, then we can assume it is what he aimed for in his own stories, and
we
> can assume that he hoped his stories could be described in that way.

I think 'inspiring a pleasing terror in the reader' is a good description of
an effective ghostly tale; the terror is pleasing inasmuch as it's safe (you
don't really expect the nasties to get you, or anything unnerving to be
lurking under the pillow or outside the door, but you can safely experience
those feelings while the story is being read). It's the same sort of feeling
that urges people to go on the scariest, wildest rides at the fairground:
while you're on the ride you can be pleasantly terrified by the feelings
inspired, while at the same time knowing that at the end of the ride you'll
emerge unscathed (if queasy). Fairground haunted houses are another example:
those who go in to them (such as myself) hope to be frightened by the
experience, but know that we will experience a 'pleasing terror', in that
the ghosts aren't real and when we emerge into the sunlight the world be
normal and as it was. If you're not looking for that 'pleasing terror',
don't read the ghost story or go on the roller coaster or enter the haunted
house.

I doubt that James or anyone else is asking that we find the actual events
described in ghost stories as 'pleasant' (many ghost stories by their nature
describing horrific events which should not be replicated in real life;
don't try this at home, kids!), although I wouldn't presume to speak for
him; he's describing the sensation of reading the story as a whole. I don't
find a problem with this; I can read Wakefield's stories and be pleasantly
frightened by them, while not agreeing that all women are castrating bitches
who deserve to die horrible deaths, or viewing Wakefield as someone who had
urges to kill women in gruesome ways.

Barbara
 >> Stay informed about: For Chris Barker 

Hi Folks,

Just when I was thinking how pleasant it was to follow a discussion in
which folks from both sides of the hundred-flames-war were
participating without the old sores being opened up, too.

I thought things were progressing relatively well, all things
considered.

And then Todd and Nomis had to go and spoil it all.

What ? Why, who did you think I meant ?

- Chris
 >> Stay informed about: For Chris Barker