The Fontana Book of Great Ghost Stories

[cw67q]

The Wendigo is my favourite of Blackwood's tales, and from a number of past discussions on All Hallows I'm far from being the only holder of this opinion.

The Dover Best GS of AB was one of the first books I picked up when I strated to reread horror fiction again after a gap of many years. I'd just finished rereading Lovecraft and most of Campbell and decided to follow up on some of HPLs favourites from "Supenatural Horror in Lit". The Dover Blackwood was a great place to start...

The first two tales I read were "Ancient Sorcery" and "the Wendigo" and I was completely knocked sideways. I thought both tales stronger than even the best of Lovecraft's stories. The next two I read were "the Willows" & "Secret Worship" which were almost as good as the first two (although the latter is let down by the ending which c/sh-ould have been so much darker). The rest of the book is fine stuff two but these tales remain firm favourites of mine. Blackwood was very prolific though and somewhat uneven in his output. The Dover Best of collection is a probbaly the best single introduction to Blackwood. The best of the original collections is almost certaionly "Pan's Garden", which has been reprinted amore than once in recent years. This collection really sets out Blackwoods fundamental theme of awe/terror in nature. IIRC very few, if any, tales from PG made it into the "Best of" so there should be little duplication there.

On the weird tales idea.

- chris

[dem]

strangely Algernon Blackwood hasn't really had much of a look in on Vault. we just about managed to get a thread off the ground on the old board here but that died out after a few comments on his greatest hits. i'd go along with Chris that his work is "somewhat uneven" though when he's at his best ..... here's another vote for The Wendigo over The Willows though i may change my mind when i eventually get around to a long overdue rematch with both. It's hardly Blackwood's fault but i'd read so much hype about the latter that it couldn't possibly live up to my expectation. Same thing happened with Machen's The White People.

Jun 18, 2010 7:13:53 GMT Johnlprobert said:

Has anyone considered that Aickman might have been asked to put together a book of 'classic weird stories' and then at the last minute Fontana changed the title to 'Great Ghost Stories' to increase marketability?

i hadn't but in all seriousness i think you've got a point.

[andydecker]

You know, it´s been ages that I read Blackwood that I can´t remember any specifics about his stories. Except that I have four german collections and that he had an interesting life which ended in mystery.

Maybe I should re-read him, weven if I am not that a fan of short stories.

It's hardly Blackwood's fault but i'd read so much hype about the latter that it couldn't possibly live up to my expectation. Same thing happened with Machen's The White People.

Or with C.A.Smith. How often has "Genius Loci" been anthologized, which owes a lot to Blackwood if I remember correctly.

[jonathan122]

Jun 18, 2010 7:13:53 GMT Johnlprobert said:

Has anyone considered that Aickman might have been asked to put together a book of 'classic weird stories' and then at the last minute Fontana changed the title to 'Great Ghost Stories' to increase marketability?

I think I always assumed that he was asked to compile a book of ghost stories and then completely ignored the brief and picked whatever he wanted.

[Dr Strange]

Jun 18, 2010 11:36:04 GMT andydecker said:

You know, it´s been ages that I read Blackwood that I can´t remember any specifics about his stories.
Maybe I should re-read him, weven if I am not that a fan of short stories.

It's hardly Blackwood's fault but i'd read so much hype about the latter that it couldn't possibly live up to my expectation. Same thing happened with Machen's The White People.

Or with C.A.Smith. How often has "Genius Loci" been anthologized, which owes a lot to Blackwood if I remember correctly.

I've got a Blackwood "Best Of" (possibly same selection as mentioned earlier - not sure) plus "The Complete John Silence Stories". He is very uneven, but when he is good...

As it happens, "The White People" is my favourite Machen story (closely followed by "The Great God Pan"), though I haven't really read that much of his stuff. He can get a bit mystical for me sometimes, but I like his "pagan survival" stories a lot.

And I would agree that CAS's "Genius Loci" appears to owe much to Blackwood's own "nature horror" stories (i.e. Wendigo/Willows/etc.), which are essentially variations on the genius loci theme. As it happens, I've got a big thick... volume of CAS stories (Fantasy Masterworks series). By time I had worked my way through that I had just about had enough of him.

I used to have this idea that "believers" in the occult/supernatural were usually much less effective writers of horror than non-believers (or agnostics) - believers tending to try to "explain" how the occult works, and ending up boring me (and also sounding very silly). I could be wrong (of course), and it does come down to individual taste (obviously), but Blackwood and Machen both professed "belief" and can be very hit-or-miss. And (maybe) they miss more when they are trying to "explain" too much.

And I noticed the Crowley collection on the Wordsworth pages - I've read a couple of his shorts (don't really remember anything about them now); I've also read "The Moonchild" and "Diary of a Drug Fiend". Can't say I would recommend them; can say they do nothing to contradict the above (assuming he genuinely believed).

Who do I reckon as nonbelievers or agnostics? I'd say HP Lovecraft (definitely) and MR James (probably).

[marksamuels]

My take is it that it doesn't matter whether you do or don't believe in the supernatural.

I certainly don't hold with all this "weird fiction is a representation of the author's socio-political or philosophical world view" stuff. I think that analysis does away with the key role the unconscious plays in creating an effective tale.

So I think they're more like waking nightmares, innit?

Mark S.

[Craig Herbertson]

I agree Mark. Waking nightmares is about right.

I extensively read Crowley in my twenties and sundry occultists. I came to a conclusion, almost as utterly dull as Denis Wheatley, that magic was bloody dangerous stuff. Belief in the supernatural can kill you, never better exemplified than in that remake of the Casting of the Runes, Night Of The Demon.

I studied anthropology at Manchester University and many anthropologists have suffered at the hands of the evil eye. Read 'Witchcraft in the Bocage' if you don't believe in spooks; the author Jeanne Favret-Saada started her academic study with as much scepticism as anyone could summon and ended her fieldwork in fear of her life.

I was always struck by the words of my Canadian tutor who had been out somewhere in the jungle. He was a young guy and we were talking one to one about witchcraft and he said in a matter of fact voice that the local witchdoctor, threatened by his presence, had sent ghosts at night out to get him. I quizzed him a bit about it and talked a bit of theory about rationalising experiences and the function of ghosts as a symbolic power model. He said

'No, not symbolic ghosts. Real ghosts. I was terrified.'

In Crowley's view you can either disbelieve in the supernatural or believe. In either event what matters is empirical experience. I don't disagree. If you lie at night and a ghost is tapping on your door it doesn't matter a whit if its real or in your mind. either way it will scare you to death.

I think as a Christian, M R James would have believed in Evil. That single belief leaves him open to the supernatural card but his stories only hinted at the possibility which is what he was after - doubt.

[marksamuels]

Spot on, Craig. Spot on.

You've summed up my views exactly.

Mark S.

[monker]

I too had the weight of expectation effectively ruin my enjoyment of Machen's 'The White People' and I rate a few of his other stories ahead of it. I must have been in a better state of mind for 'The Willows' as it is my favourite of Blackwood’s; 'The Wendigo' was a bit too sloppily written and if I interpreted 'Ancient Sorceries' correctly, it seemed to end on a bit of a copout.

Blackwood is one of those authors that has had his best stories overshadow the rest of his output. He was so uneven that it kind of leaves you trepidatious as to what to expect. One thing that is kind of disappointing is that Blackwood seems like he doesn’t know how to end many of his stories and the ‘awe’ element is strangely glossed over. What should be wonderment or terror comes across as a sort of minor disruption or irritant in some cases. It’s sort of the opposite of Lovecraft.

[Dr Strange]

Jun 18, 2010 17:18:28 GMT Craig Herbertson said:

I agree Mark. Waking nightmares is about right.

I extensively read Crowley in my twenties and sundry occultists. I came to a conclusion, almost as utterly dull as Denis Wheatley, that magic was bloody dangerous stuff. Belief in the supernatural can kill you, never better exemplified than in that remake of the Casting of the Runes, Night Of The Demon.

I studied anthropology at Manchester University and many anthropologists have suffered at the hands of the evil eye. Read 'Witchcraft in the Bocage' if you don't believe in spooks; the author Jeanne Favret-Saada started her academic study with as much scepticism as anyone could summon and ended her fieldwork in fear of her life.

I was always struck by the words of my Canadian tutor who had been out somewhere in the jungle. He was a young guy and we were talking one to one about witchcraft and he said in a matter of fact voice that the local witchdoctor, threatened by his presence, had sent ghosts at night out to get him. I quizzed him a bit about it and talked a bit of theory about rationalising experiences and the function of ghosts as a symbolic power model. He said

'No, not symbolic ghosts. Real ghosts. I was terrified.'

In Crowley's view you can either disbelieve in the supernatural or believe. In either event what matters is empirical experience. I don't disagree. If you lie at night and a ghost is tapping on your door it doesn't matter a whit if its real or in your mind. either way it will scare you to death.

I think as a Christian, M R James would have believed in Evil. That single belief leaves him open to the supernatural card but his stories only hinted at the possibility which is what he was after - doubt.

Well there is a lot to address there. First off, the idea that horror comes from the unconscious (as expressed by Mark S) is, itself, both a "philosophical" view and an "analysis" so it seems rather strange then to claim not to be interested in such things.

Second, academic qualifications are no protection from superstitious thinking (or simply getting things wrong). I wonder if a pre-existing belief in the supernatural might even draw people to certain academic disciplines (like anthropology). Sorry, but I gave up believing everything I read a long time ago (especially anthropologists - Carlos Casteneda anyone?).

In case you are interested - I have a PhD in psychology (and us lot are notorious skeptics about such things). I too read Crowley and other occultists in my teens and early twenties. I went from believer to agnostic to skeptic over a period of years (partly, but not solely, as I learnt more about psychology). Crowley was either deluded or a charlatan, most likely a bit of both (and, though it really is difficult to be "as utterly dull as Dennis Wheately", Crowley certainly managed it in his writings). And I am flabbergasted that you appear to be citing a work of fiction as evidence for involvement in the occult being dangerous

If you lie at night believing a ghost is tapping on your door, yes you will frighten yourself. But if you get up and open the door you are not going to be confronted with a ghost (though you may find some people who don't like you are trying to scare you, and you are probably safer staying in bed).

You might want to read one of the MR James biographies (I've read the one by Michael Cox): there is much to suggest James didn't believe in "Evil", and that he may not even have been very convinced by christianity (e.g. he didn't take holy orders when he was very much expected to do so). In fact, everything suggests his interest in matters religious or theological were purely academic.

LATER ADD:
You seem to have misrepresented Favret-Saada: I haven't read the book (yet) but i have found some references to her work - all of those clearly state that the important lesson to be drawn from her study was that she couldn't even see what she was supposed to be studying UNTIL she immersed herself in the "culture" and started believing in witchcraft. This is very different from your claim that her experiences led her to believe that witchcraft was "real" - actually it is quite the opposite, she had to believe first. I have found a paper by her from 1988 titled "Unbewitching as therapy" (in "American Ethnologist") - again she says something very different from what you claim (as the title suggests, she sees "bewitching" and "unbewitching" as psychosocial phenomena linked to "family hatreds" - basically disputes between neighbours, usually about debts of one sort or another).

[Johnlprobert]

Jun 19, 2010 8:38:50 GMT monker said:

I too had the weight of expectation effectively ruin my enjoyment of Machen's 'The White People' and I rate a few of his other stories ahead of it. I must have been in a better state of mind for 'The Willows' as it is my favourite of Blackwood’s; 'The Wendigo' was a bit too sloppily written and if I interpreted 'Ancient Sorceries' correctly, it seemed to end on a bit of a copout.

Blackwood is one of those authors that has had his best stories overshadow the rest of his output. He was so uneven that it kind of leaves you trepidatious as to what to expect. One thing that is kind of disappointing is that Blackwood seems like he doesn’t know how to end many of his stories and the ‘awe’ element is strangely glossed over. What should be wonderment or terror comes across as a sort of minor disruption or irritant in some cases. It’s sort of the opposite of Lovecraft.

I was disappointed by 'The White People', and it's a Machen tale I intend to revisit at some time. I don't think the two can be compared, really, and I'm sure I've read the 'best' of Blackwood in those two stories, but I 've found Blackwood far more readable, and far less dated, than Machen.

[monker]

Jun 19, 2010 11:06:56 GMT Dr Strange said:

Well there is a lot to address there. First off, the idea that horror comes from the unconscious (as expressed by Mark S) is, itself, both a "philosophical" view and an "analysis" so it seems rather strange then to claim not to be interested in such things.

For me it depends from what perspective you wish to analyse. It’s a bit of a chicken VS egg scenario between subconscious and world view.

I tend to prefer horror fiction that tweaks receptors that may not be shared amongst all readers. That may sound naively obvious but I suppose I mean stuff that can be taken literally but is not necessarily plot driven.

I think that’s a key for me, it’s not so much about ‘evil’ as it is about ‘other’. In that way, it’s more about an escape from the human condition as apposed to an analysation of it, to be perfectly honest. It’s just a mystery why I ultimately chose supernatural fiction over fantasy. I was perfectly happy with that genre, indeed, in some ways more so than I am with horror. A lesson that a lot of authors could learn, in my opinion, is not to take the word ‘horror’ of the genre’s title too literally.

Jun 19, 2010 11:19:50 GMT Johnlprobert said:

Jun 19, 2010 8:38:50 GMT monker said:

I too had the weight of expectation effectively ruin my enjoyment of Machen's 'The White People' and I rate a few of his other stories ahead of it. I must have been in a better state of mind for 'The Willows' as it is my favourite of Blackwood’s; 'The Wendigo' was a bit too sloppily written and if I interpreted 'Ancient Sorceries' correctly, it seemed to end on a bit of a copout.

Blackwood is one of those authors that has had his best stories overshadow the rest of his output. He was so uneven that it kind of leaves you trepidatious as to what to expect. One thing that is kind of disappointing is that Blackwood seems like he doesn’t know how to end many of his stories and the ‘awe’ element is strangely glossed over. What should be wonderment or terror comes across as a sort of minor disruption or irritant in some cases. It’s sort of the opposite of Lovecraft.

I was disappointed by 'The White People', and it's a Machen tale I intend to revisit at some time. I don't think the two can be compared, really, and I'm sure I've read the 'best' of Blackwood in those two stories, but I 've found Blackwood far more readable, and far less dated, than Machen.

I'm not too sure, I think the two are comparable but I actually prefer Machen although no single story of his approaches 'The Willows' IMO. I'm sure Blackwood's best is amongst the four you mentioned but I wish to believe there is more to him, even if it pains me to try to find out for myself.

[Dr Strange]

Jun 19, 2010 12:01:37 GMT monker said:

Jun 19, 2010 11:06:56 GMT Dr Strange said:

Well there is a lot to address there. First off, the idea that horror comes from the unconscious (as expressed by Mark S) is, itself, both a "philosophical" view and an "analysis" so it seems rather strange then to claim not to be interested in such things.

For me it depends from what perspective you wish to analyse. It’s a bit of a chicken VS egg scenario between subconscious and world view.

I tend to prefer horror fiction that tweaks receptors that may not be shared amongst all readers. That may sound naively obvious but I suppose I mean stuff that can be taken literally but is not necessarily plot driven.

I think that’s a key for me, it’s not so much about ‘evil’ as it is about ‘other’. In that way, it’s more about an escape from the human condition as apposed as an analysation of it, to be perfectly honest. It’s just a mystery why I ultimately chose supernatural fiction over fantasy. I was perfectly happy with that genre, indeed, in some ways more so than I am with horror. A lesson that a lot of authors could learn, in my opinion, is not to take the word ‘horror’ in the genre’s title too literally.

I think "the other" idea is a good one. I think that not being able to understand the motivation of the "monster" is part of what makes it monstrous. So that's why the "psycho" fits into the horror genre, but the guy who is killing for material gain typically doesn't. And who can understand the motivation of killer slugs, sharks, etc?

The problem with the "unconscious" view is that if you can consciously access it, then it isn't unconscious.

And, BTW, the egg came first - logically, the first chicken must have hatched from an egg laid by a non-chicken. Assuming you believe in evolution, that is.

[monker]

Not that I usually find the animals on rampage motif a particularly effective one but that's a matter of personal taste and is neither here nor there.

That's interesting about the unconscious becoming conscious because I make little mental notes as to the precise points of where stories begin to win me over and they are not always obvious and explainable. In that way, I don't know if they hold up to 'analysis' so to speak and that's part of what I've been trying to get at for the last few days.

If I began writing fiction (I've have a few ideas and dabbled once without completion) I have discovered that I have a few themes and they are implicit rather than explicit but who is to know if it would be innate to the work? Is it just an impression I get from a wish for self analysis rather than what I get from the ideas themselves? In other words, the idea is to create a mood that I hope others pick up on rather than trying to say anything specific.

[Dr Strange]

Jun 19, 2010 12:53:20 GMT monker said:

That's interesting about the unconscious becoming conscious because I make little mental notes as to the precise points of where stories begin to win me over and they are not always obvious and explainable. In that way, I don't know if they hold up to 'analysis' so to speak and that's part of what I've been trying to get at for the last few days.

If I began writing fiction (I've have a few ideas and dabbled once without completion) I have discovered that I have a few themes and they are implicit rather than explicit but who is to know if it would be innate to the work? Is it just an impression I get from a wish for self analysis rather than what I get from the ideas themselves? In other words, the idea is to create a mood that I hope others pick up on rather than trying to say anything definitive or literal.

Well, I can only speak about my approach to reading horror. I don't try to "analyze" at all as I am reading (though ideas, suppositions, apparent similarities to other stories, etc. will sometimes just pop into mind) - I really just try to enjoy the story. After I've finished reading is when I (sometimes) have a good hard think about it - but only if it has had some real emotional impact, or if there is something that I feel I have not quite got. As much as anything, I suppose I am "analyzing" my own response, rather than the story per se.

If I ever refer to reading a story and not remembering anything about it (and I do that quite a lot), that is usually a sign that it didn't make me think - either because there was nothing more to it than the obvious, or because it wasn't a story that had any emotional impact on me. It doesn't necessarily mean the story was no good - just that it literally didn't make me think.

I don't find rampaging animals at all interesting either - but I did come up with the "inexplicable motivation" idea when I was asked why I classed "Jaws" as a horror film (along with other non-supernatural films like "Psycho"). The person who asked me that question claimed to "hate" horror - but thought "Jaws" was a great film.