|
Post by Dr Strange on Oct 2, 2018 17:41:17 GMT
I'm not especially fond of the 80s either (especially the music, at least until grunge came along), but it did seem to be good time for horror - maybe because things were so awful in so many other ways.
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Oct 2, 2018 20:05:53 GMT
I'm not especially fond of the 80s either (especially the music, at least until grunge came along), but it did seem to be good time for horror - maybe because things were so awful in so many other ways. At least it had a kind of culture, which the last decade sorely missed. I am not much into music, never was, but I guess I still know more artists of the 80s than of the last eighteen years.
I think the 80s was also a good time for horror because the genre got its five minutes of recognition outside of a small circle. King and Koontz really bought it into the mainstream. Unfortunatly the mainstream wasn't long enough interested. Also the genre couldn't keep up the momentum, at least as literature. It surprisingly became a standard in tv and movies - a series like Supernatural is on for unbelievable fourteen years now. I also think that the crime-novel occupied its place. Harris published his serial-killer novel in 1988, and as tired as the concept has become, it is still here. Sometimes I wonder if this will last as long as the Private Eye genre, which rather abruptly fell out favour after 60 years.
|
|
|
Post by ropardoe on Oct 3, 2018 8:13:13 GMT
Hi Daniel, I think the program is only available for a week after air date. I might have just caught it in time as it was headlined the Autumn Equinox edition. Apparently Daryl or Darryl is writing a life history of our Provost. Something I found distinctly odd about the chat, what I recall of it, is that after the late Victorian era, the 1980s were said to have been a high point for "horror" (Mr. Rickman argued for a broader definition of the latter--I read somewhere recently that he had misgivings about his own work being classified as horror). I think of my own childhood days in the 1960s and early 1970s as being a high point for horror both on print and in film and television, but perhaps in the UK people like Mary Whitehouse really tried to put the lid on? The period between 1957 and 1972 was the golden era for "Hammer horror," certainly. I know that really made Whitehouse flip out. cheers, Steve The programme is available for a month, so 21 days left. Yes, Darryl Jones is writing an M.R. James biography, as mentioned above. Will be interested to see his approach, as I found his notes in the OUP edition of the Ghost Stories interesting but less so the introductory essay. I have NOT heard good reports of Darryl's Jones's plans for his biography, as described at the conference (so my info is secondhand, but from a reliable source). He seems to be planning a Freudian approach (yawn - how old-fashioned is that!?), and he also apparently said that MRJ hated women and only remained friends with Gwendolyn McBryde because of her association with his true love, James McBryde. That's a cruel insult, I think (not to mention lacking in insight). I continue to believe what I've always said - MRJ quite liked women, so long as they knew their place (that place not including academic circles). And women definitely liked him (just as we often like gay men - no challenge or threat - which is not necessarily to say that MRJ was gay: the jury's likely to remain out forever on that).
|
|
|
Post by The Lurker In The Shadows on Oct 3, 2018 9:32:28 GMT
He seems to be planning a Freudian approach (yawn - how old-fashioned is that!?), and he also apparently said that MRJ hated women and only remained friends with Gwendolyn McBryde because of her association with his true love, James McBryde. "At the end of it the Lurker left the bookshop door carrying a small volume between his finger and thumb, which he cast as far into the sea as a very brawny arm could send it."
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Oct 3, 2018 9:52:22 GMT
he also apparently said that MRJ hated women and only remained friends with Gwendolyn McBryde because of her association with his true love, James McBryde. But this is what Jones actually says in the Introduction to the James collection from OUP - “After McBryde’s death, James carried on the relationship in displaced form, with a lifelong and devoted attachment to his widow Gwendolen, easily the most important friendship he had with a woman.” Hard to see how that would tally with a belief that James "hated" women.
|
|
|
Post by ropardoe on Oct 3, 2018 11:07:35 GMT
he also apparently said that MRJ hated women and only remained friends with Gwendolyn McBryde because of her association with his true love, James McBryde. But this is what Jones actually says in the Introduction to the James collection from OUP - “After McBryde’s death, James carried on the relationship in displaced form, with a lifelong and devoted attachment to his widow Gwendolen, easily the most important friendship he had with a woman.” Hard to see how that would tally with a belief that James "hated" women. Tallies pretty well to me. But can anyone here who was at the conference confirm what it was that Darryl Jones said?
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Oct 3, 2018 11:21:22 GMT
But this is what Jones actually says in the Introduction to the James collection from OUP - “After McBryde’s death, James carried on the relationship in displaced form, with a lifelong and devoted attachment to his widow Gwendolen, easily the most important friendship he had with a woman.” Hard to see how that would tally with a belief that James "hated" women. Tallies pretty well to me. Really? A lifelong and devoted attachment = hatred?
|
|
|
Post by Shrink Proof on Oct 3, 2018 13:11:29 GMT
But this is what Jones actually says in the Introduction to the James collection from OUP - “After McBryde’s death, James carried on the relationship in displaced form, with a lifelong and devoted attachment to his widow Gwendolen, easily the most important friendship he had with a woman.” Hard to see how that would tally with a belief that James "hated" women. Tallies pretty well to me. But can anyone here who was at the conference confirm what it was that Darryl Jones said? Ooh, ooh, please miss, can I answer this one? I was there, you know.... The general consensus was that MRJ wasn't misogynist as such but (1) he got on with women as long as they were not in the ivory towers of academia (someone talked of his continued efforts in University political circles to keep the ladies out, and how he steadfastly opposed the setting up of female colleges - he would NOT have been a suffragette supporter...) and (2) his actions were very much of his time and position. So he didn't "hate" the ladies; rather, they were fine as long as they kept to their place (and were corralled there, if necessary) . There was some debate about his sexuality (yet again...) and the matter was left unresolved, (yet again...). FWIW, my own views (as a shrink) are (1) anyone using Freud to delve into such matters is on a hiding to nothing - Freud's position in present-day Psychiatry and Psychotherapy is akin to George Stephenson's position in Network Rail, i.e., historically interesting but completely superseded by more efficient, accurate and evidence-based methods, and (2) MRJ was probably so far into the closet that he was virtually in Narnia.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Oct 3, 2018 13:21:10 GMT
The programme is available for a month, so 21 days left. Yes, Darryl Jones is writing an M.R. James biography, as mentioned above. Will be interested to see his approach, as I found his notes in the OUP edition of the Ghost Stories interesting but less so the introductory essay. I have NOT heard good reports of Darryl's Jones's plans for his biography, as described at the conference (so my info is secondhand, but from a reliable source). He seems to be planning a Freudian approach (yawn - how old-fashioned is that!?), and he also apparently said that MRJ hated women and only remained friends with Gwendolyn McBryde because of her association with his true love, James McBryde. That's a cruel insult, I think (not to mention lacking in insight). I continue to believe what I've always said - MRJ quite liked women, so long as they knew their place (that place not including academic circles). And women definitely liked him (just as we often like gay men - no challenge or threat - which is not necessarily to say that MRJ was gay: the jury's likely to remain out forever on that). As the Freudian approach can be applied to literally any work of fiction (written or filmed) it is only for pseudo-intellectual academics wanting to make an impression or for those who are personally warped in some way. Cosmo Smallpiece agrees with me.
|
|
|
Post by ropardoe on Oct 3, 2018 16:00:11 GMT
Tallies pretty well to me. But can anyone here who was at the conference confirm what it was that Darryl Jones said? Ooh, ooh, please miss, can I answer this one? I was there, you know.... The general consensus was that MRJ wasn't misogynist as such but (1) he got on with women as long as they were not in the ivory towers of academia (someone talked of his continued efforts in University political circles to keep the ladies out, and how he steadfastly opposed the setting up of female colleges - he would NOT have been a suffragette supporter...) and (2) his actions were very much of his time and position. So he didn't "hate" the ladies; rather, they were fine as long as they kept to their place (and were corralled there, if necessary) . There was some debate about his sexuality (yet again...) and the matter was left unresolved, (yet again...). FWIW, my own views (as a shrink) are (1) anyone using Freud to delve into such matters is on a hiding to nothing - Freud's position in present-day Psychiatry and Psychotherapy is akin to George Stephenson's position in Network Rail, i.e., historically interesting but completely superseded by more efficient, accurate and evidence-based methods, and (2) MRJ was probably so far into the closet that he was virtually in Narnia. I don't really disagree with any of that, though I'm not convinced by the closet thing. And it doesn't make the point that the ladies really liked HIM. But the question is, what was Darryl Jones's view and how will it be reflected in his biography?
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Oct 3, 2018 17:53:02 GMT
Ooh, ooh, please miss, can I answer this one? I was there, you know.... The general consensus was that MRJ wasn't misogynist as such but (1) he got on with women as long as they were not in the ivory towers of academia (someone talked of his continued efforts in University political circles to keep the ladies out, and how he steadfastly opposed the setting up of female colleges - he would NOT have been a suffragette supporter...) and (2) his actions were very much of his time and position. So he didn't "hate" the ladies; rather, they were fine as long as they kept to their place (and were corralled there, if necessary) . There was some debate about his sexuality (yet again...) and the matter was left unresolved, (yet again...). FWIW, my own views (as a shrink) are (1) anyone using Freud to delve into such matters is on a hiding to nothing - Freud's position in present-day Psychiatry and Psychotherapy is akin to George Stephenson's position in Network Rail, i.e., historically interesting but completely superseded by more efficient, accurate and evidence-based methods, and (2) MRJ was probably so far into the closet that he was virtually in Narnia. I don't really disagree with any of that, though I'm not convinced by the closet thing. And it doesn't make the point that the ladies really liked HIM. But the question is, what was Darryl Jones's view and how will it be reflected in his biography? I'm with you on that - maybe we should just wait and see what he actually says? From what I remember of "Horror: A Thematic History" he just seemed to be saying that horror has, at various times, reflected some new idea or broader change in society that seemed frightening to a lot of people at the time. I think he pointed to the likes of Darwin and Marx more often than Freud, but really all he was saying was that these ideas scared people, so they were deliberately used by (at least some) authors of the time - rather than saying they are "theories" for "analysing" the whole genre at some deeper level.
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Oct 3, 2018 17:55:06 GMT
MRJ was probably so far into the closet that he was virtually in Narnia. I like this expression! Is it your own?
|
|
|
Post by Shrink Proof on Oct 4, 2018 7:09:16 GMT
MRJ was probably so far into the closet that he was virtually in Narnia. I like this expression! Is it your own? Yes. And no. I came up with it some years back but have since heard it used by other folk. So either more than one person figured it out and/or it was subconsciously absorbed. I really wish I could be different and original like everyone else is.* *That's one of Vivian Stanshall's expressions, so not one of mine...
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Oct 4, 2018 9:29:51 GMT
(2) MRJ was probably so far into the closet that he was virtually in Narnia. I really don't know enough about James to speculate on this, but I think to label writers misogynist who were living most of their adult lives in an age where woman didn't even could vote is pretty pointless. It implies that he made an extra effort in this regard while the rest of his society was more enlighted. While in reality the opposite is true. The same goes with No. 2. Isn't this all just speculation? Are there any clues? Except that it is hard to imagine that someone in his professional position and environment would have come out of the closet.
|
|
|
Post by Shrink Proof on Oct 4, 2018 11:26:41 GMT
(2) MRJ was probably so far into the closet that he was virtually in Narnia. I really don't know enough about James to speculate on this, but I think to label writers misogynist who were living most of their adult lives in an age where woman didn't even could vote is pretty pointless. It implies that he made an extra effort in this regard while the rest of his society was more enlighted. While in reality the opposite is true. The same goes with No. 2. Isn't this all just speculation? Are there any clues? Except that it is hard to imagine that someone in his professional position and environment would have come out of the closet. There are clues but I can't be fagged (so to speak) ploughing through the internet to find them. Except in a very few, usually extreme, circumstances I generally view the sexuality of others with near-terminal indifference. I just like the stories...
|
|