|
Post by Michael Connolly on Mar 18, 2021 14:24:58 GMT
Totally unexpectedly, because Mark Valentine told me to expect it in May, Ghosts and Scholars 40 arrived today. I've only had time to flip through it but the article on Darryl Jones's progress with his biography of MRJ looks interesting, even if I might not agree with his Freudian take.
|
|
|
Post by helrunar on Mar 18, 2021 16:26:02 GMT
Heavens to Betsy! Dare I ask what the "Freudian take" on our dear Provost could possibly be??
These psychoanalyst types are implacable; chivvying into every conceivable nook and cranny, and then slipping a small drill out from inside a sleeve to make a wormhole where smooth pristine marble and ebony had been seen before.
cheers, H.
|
|
|
Post by Shrink Proof on Mar 19, 2021 10:44:05 GMT
Heavens to Betsy! Dare I ask what the "Freudian take" on our dear Provost could possibly be?? These psychoanalyst types are implacable; chivvying into every conceivable nook and cranny, and then slipping a small drill out from inside a sleeve to make a wormhole where smooth pristine marble and ebony had been seen before. cheers, H. The louder that someone is banging the Freudian drum, the less likely they are to have ever had to deal with someone suffering from a major mental illness.
|
|
|
Post by dem bones on Mar 19, 2021 12:22:32 GMT
That's this weekend's reading matter decided then. Helen Kemp [ed.] - Ghosts & Scholars #40 (Haunted Library, March 2021). We dedicate this issue in memory of Darroll Pardoe, friend and supporter of this journal for many years, and send our condolences to our founding editor, Rosemary Pardoe. Helen Kemp - Editorial Helen Kemp - Jamesian News Rick Kennett - Jamesian Podcasts #13 Ro Pardoe - Lady Wardrop's Notes
Darryl Jones - M. R. James: Towards a New Biography Martin Voracek - New Discoveries about Translations of M. R. James's Ghostly Fiction during his Lifetime Peter Bell - Cyprus: Product of a Country Clergyman's Leisure
Fiction Mark Nicholls - The Happy Highways Gail-Nina Anderson - The Manor Ghost H. R. Hopcroft - The Laying of Hands
Jamesian Notes & Queries Charles Dudgeon - The Case of the Reverend Mr. Toomey
Jamesian Notes & Queries Andrew Humphrey, Trick of the Light, reviewed by Brian Lavelle F. K. Young, Yellow Glass and other Ghost Stories, reviewed by Helen GrantJim Bryant - A French Farce: In the Tracks of M. R. James (Haunted Library, March 2021). Introduction A French Farce: In the Tracks of M. R. James Dates: 22 September - 9 October 1896 Notes on the transcriptionsThese have arrived just long enough for me to scan covers and note down TOC's so inaccuracies and typos good as guaranteed. Thanks to Mark, Jo, and, as ever, Ro.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Mar 19, 2021 13:43:10 GMT
Heavens to Betsy! Dare I ask what the "Freudian take" on our dear Provost could possibly be?? These psychoanalyst types are implacable; chivvying into every conceivable nook and cranny, and then slipping a small drill out from inside a sleeve to make a wormhole where smooth pristine marble and ebony had been seen before. cheers, H. The louder that someone is banging the Freudian drum, the less likely they are to have ever had to deal with someone suffering from a major mental illness. I don't understand this.
|
|
|
Post by David A. Riley on Mar 19, 2021 15:11:31 GMT
That's this weekend's reading matter decided then. Helen Kemp [ed.] - Ghosts & Scholars #40 (Haunted Library, March 2021). We dedicate this issue in memory of Darroll Pardoe, friend and supporter of this journal for many years, and send our condolences to our founding editor, Rosemary Pardoe. Helen Kemp - Editorial Helen Kemp - Jamesian News Rick Kennett - Jamesian Podcasts #13 Ro Pardoe - Lady Wardrop's Notes
Darryl Jones - M. R. James: Towards a New Biography Martin Voracek - New Discoveries about Translations of M. R. James's Ghostly Fiction during his Lifetime Peter Bell - Cyprus: Product of a Country Clergyman's Leisure
Fiction Mark Nicholls - The Happy Highways Gail-Nina Anderson - The Manor Ghost H. R. Hopcroft - The Laying of Hands
Jamesian Notes & Queries Charles Dudgeon - The Case of the Reverend Mr. Toomey
Jamesian Notes & Queries Andrew Humphrey, Trick of the Light, reviewed by Brian Lavelle F. K. Young, Yellow Glass and other Ghost Stories, reviewed by Helen GrantJim Bryant - A French Farce: In the Tracks of M. R. James (Haunted Library, March 2021). Introduction A French Farce: In the Tracks of M. R. James Dates: 22 September - 9 October 1896 Notes on the transcriptionsThese have arrived just long enough for me to scan covers and note down TOC's so inaccuracies and typos good as guaranteed. Thanks to Mark, Jo, and, as ever, Ro. Just received my copies today and am already halfway through Jim Bryant's fascinating account of MRJ's travels through France in 1896 in A French farce: In the Tracks of M. R. James.
|
|
|
Post by Shrink Proof on Mar 19, 2021 16:46:31 GMT
The louder that someone is banging the Freudian drum, the less likely they are to have ever had to deal with someone suffering from a major mental illness. I don't understand this. I think that looking into the deeper levels of MRJ, or indeed any other writer, is entirely valid, and I'd be interested to read what Darryl Jones has to say. But using Freudian theory as the basis for so doing is probably not the best way of going about it, given that almost all of Sigmund's theories have been consigned to the history books by much of psychology and virtually all of psychiatry. The problem with it is that Freudian analysis sold itself as an infallible method for understanding personality functioning, and therefore as a treatment for mental disorder. It wasn't, it was a secular religion.
|
|
|
Post by helrunar on Mar 19, 2021 17:33:57 GMT
Both the Freudians and the Jungians seem to have taken a religious attitude to what they did, and with Jung there were elements of an Initiatory Mystery Cult--which is probably why I find what Jungians do more nuanced and interesting, as a rule. They have more myths to play with beyond the "primal scene."
But I shouldn't ride my hobby-horse out here in the solemn purlieux of the Vault...
H.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Mar 19, 2021 19:19:20 GMT
I don't understand this. I think that looking into the deeper levels of MRJ, or indeed any other writer, is entirely valid, and I'd be interested to read what Darryl Jones has to say. But using Freudian theory as the basis for so doing is probably not the best way of going about it, given that almost all of Sigmund's theories have been consigned to the history books by much of psychology and virtually all of psychiatry. The problem with it is that Freudian analysis sold itself as an infallible method for understanding personality functioning, and therefore as a treatment for mental disorder. It wasn't, it was a secular religion. I don't understand this.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Mar 19, 2021 23:34:25 GMT
I think that looking into the deeper levels of MRJ, or indeed any other writer, is entirely valid, and I'd be interested to read what Darryl Jones has to say. But using Freudian theory as the basis for so doing is probably not the best way of going about it, given that almost all of Sigmund's theories have been consigned to the history books by much of psychology and virtually all of psychiatry. The problem with it is that Freudian analysis sold itself as an infallible method for understanding personality functioning, and therefore as a treatment for mental disorder. It wasn't, it was a secular religion. Yes, but I'm not sure this is actually what Jones is about. I've read his Horror: A Thematic History in Fiction & Film (2003), and Freud gets a few mentions (as do Darwin and Marx) - but Jones is more interested in understanding what makes horror "work", what makes something "horror" in the first place, why people enjoy it, and those sorts of things. He's interested in literary theory, not "psychoanalysing" authors - so he looks at Freud's ideas about "the uncanny" ( Das Unheimliche) to see how they apply to the horror genre, rather than trying to apply psychoanalysis to understanding an author's "personality functioning". I am not even sure that he thinks, or cares that much whether, Freud's ideas are true or not - it's more of an intellectual exercise to see what comes out of the process of applying those ideas to works of fiction. From what I can work out, Freud's basic idea was that the experience of "the uncanny" (which may or may not be the same thing as "the weird", I'm not sure) depends on something seeming to be both familiar and unfamiliar (as in "the uncanny valley" idea in robotics). If it is only familiar, then there's little emotional response (or maybe a positive one); if it is only unfamiliar, then we might feel surprise, fear, or disgust, or whatever. But if it combines both, we get this "uncanny" feeling - which, for some reason or other (not sure if Freud is clear on this) is an experience we might sometimes actively seek out (e.g. by reading horror stories). I think for Jones, he's really only interested in whether this works as an explanation of what "horror" is and why we respond to it in the way we do - or maybe whether it explains the difference between "good" and "bad" horror - he's not really interested in "psychoanalyzing" authors or film makers. In fact, he often makes the point that many authors and film makers are well aware of Freud's writing about "the uncanny", and so they deliberately incorporate those ideas into their work - so there's nothing "unconscious" going on at all, it is entirely conscious (I'd say Aickman is a good example of this). The only question then is, "Does it work?" (the story, and the theory).
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Mar 20, 2021 11:45:51 GMT
I think that looking into the deeper levels of MRJ, or indeed any other writer, is entirely valid, and I'd be interested to read what Darryl Jones has to say. But using Freudian theory as the basis for so doing is probably not the best way of going about it, given that almost all of Sigmund's theories have been consigned to the history books by much of psychology and virtually all of psychiatry. The problem with it is that Freudian analysis sold itself as an infallible method for understanding personality functioning, and therefore as a treatment for mental disorder. It wasn't, it was a secular religion. Yes, but I'm not sure this is actually what Jones is about. I've read his Horror: A Thematic History in Fiction & Film (2003), and Freud gets a few mentions (as do Darwin and Marx) - but Jones is more interested in understanding what makes horror "work", what makes something "horror" in the first place, why people enjoy it, and those sorts of things. He's interested in literary theory, not "psychoanalysing" authors - so he looks at Freud's ideas about "the uncanny" ( Das Unheimliche) to see how they apply to the horror genre, rather than trying to apply psychoanalysis to understanding an author's "personality functioning". I am not even sure that he thinks, or cares that much whether, Freud's ideas are true or not - it's more of an intellectual exercise to see what comes out of the process of applying those ideas to works of fiction. From what I can work out, Freud's basic idea was that the experience of "the uncanny" (which may or may not be the same thing as "the weird", I'm not sure) depends on something seeming to be both familiar and unfamiliar (as in "the uncanny valley" idea in robotics). If it is only familiar, then there's little emotional response (or maybe a positive one); if it is only unfamiliar, then we might feel surprise, fear, or disgust, or whatever. But if it combines both, we get this "uncanny" feeling - which, for some reason or other (not sure if Freud is clear on this) is an experience we might sometimes actively seek out (e.g. by reading horror stories). I think for Jones, he's really only interested in whether this works as an explanation of what "horror" is and why we respond to it in the way we do - or maybe whether it explains the difference between "good" and "bad" horror - he's not really interested in "psychoanalyzing" authors or film makers. In fact, he often makes the point that many authors and film makers are well aware of Freud's writing about "the uncanny", and so they deliberately incorporate those ideas into their work - so there's nothing "unconscious" going on at all, it is entirely conscious (I'd say Aickman is a good example of this). The only question then is, "Does it work?" (the story, and the theory). I remember reading a Freudian analysis of the film Alien and a Marxist analysis of Jaws (the film), both of which made ludicrous claims. In each case I got the impression of someone trying to show that the films are "more" than entertainment by making unconvincing claims about what they "reveal" their makers' conscious or unconscious intentions. You can apply a Freudian approach to literally anything and find "meaning" in it, which is what I think Jones is trying to do. In the specific case of M.R. James, I regard his stories as being well-structured and intelligent entertainment, which is more than enough for me in any medium.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Mar 20, 2021 14:55:21 GMT
Apropos of nothing, some of the music for Alien was taken from Jerry Goldsmith's original score for the film Freud: The Secret Passion (1962), which was directed by John Houston and had Montgomery Clift playing Freud.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Mar 21, 2021 11:51:28 GMT
Both the Freudians and the Jungians seem to have taken a religious attitude to what they did, and with Jung there were elements of an Initiatory Mystery Cult--which is probably why I find what Jungians do more nuanced and interesting, as a rule. They have more myths to play with beyond the "primal scene." H. For me, it's just as interesting/entertaining to know that the idea for a horror story came from Freudian or Jungian "theory" as when it comes from some ancient mythology or folklore. Freud and Jung both just give you some other myths to work/play with - myths that many people (in the West at least) will already have some vague familiarity with. You certainly don't have to believe in any of it, just like you don't have to believe in the supernatural to enjoy horror.
|
|
|
Post by dem bones on Mar 21, 2021 20:46:12 GMT
Gail-Nina Anderson - The Manor Ghost: Gerry, married, four kids, inherits Middleton Manor from eccentric Great-aunt Delia, wealthy widow and prolific author of particularly bad local history booklets. He's the first of the family the first to encounter the miserable ghost in residence, that of a girl who went missing at the end of WWII. Afterward, the girl makes herself known to his children, notably Tamsin, a fifteen year old goth, and - most dramatically - the youngest boy, William. Gerry's chatty narrative grows progressively darker with each visitation, until he's moved to consult newspaper records at the local library .... I came directly to this story from reading the latest issue of Take A Break and for three pages, in terms of setting, it's almost a home from home - celebrity TV psychics, seance-dabbling goth girls, scented candles and lockdown. You can almost visualise Tamsin perfecting her selfie pout. Then the mood takes a grimmer turn until I utterly loved this damn story to death!
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Mar 22, 2021 14:51:51 GMT
Yes, but I'm not sure this is actually what Jones is about. I've read his Horror: A Thematic History in Fiction & Film (2003), and Freud gets a few mentions (as do Darwin and Marx) - but Jones is more interested in understanding what makes horror "work", what makes something "horror" in the first place, why people enjoy it, and those sorts of things. He's interested in literary theory, not "psychoanalysing" authors - so he looks at Freud's ideas about "the uncanny" ( Das Unheimliche) to see how they apply to the horror genre, rather than trying to apply psychoanalysis to understanding an author's "personality functioning". I am not even sure that he thinks, or cares that much whether, Freud's ideas are true or not - it's more of an intellectual exercise to see what comes out of the process of applying those ideas to works of fiction. From what I can work out, Freud's basic idea was that the experience of "the uncanny" (which may or may not be the same thing as "the weird", I'm not sure) depends on something seeming to be both familiar and unfamiliar (as in "the uncanny valley" idea in robotics). If it is only familiar, then there's little emotional response (or maybe a positive one); if it is only unfamiliar, then we might feel surprise, fear, or disgust, or whatever. But if it combines both, we get this "uncanny" feeling - which, for some reason or other (not sure if Freud is clear on this) is an experience we might sometimes actively seek out (e.g. by reading horror stories). I think for Jones, he's really only interested in whether this works as an explanation of what "horror" is and why we respond to it in the way we do - or maybe whether it explains the difference between "good" and "bad" horror - he's not really interested in "psychoanalyzing" authors or film makers. In fact, he often makes the point that many authors and film makers are well aware of Freud's writing about "the uncanny", and so they deliberately incorporate those ideas into their work - so there's nothing "unconscious" going on at all, it is entirely conscious (I'd say Aickman is a good example of this). The only question then is, "Does it work?" (the story, and the theory). I remember reading a Freudian analysis of the film Alien and a Marxist analysis of Jaws (the film), both of which made ludicrous claims. In each case I got the impression of someone trying to show that the films are "more" than entertainment by making unconvincing claims about what they "reveal" their makers' conscious or unconscious intentions. You can apply a Freudian approach to literally anything and find "meaning" in it, which is what I think Jones is trying to do. In the specific case of M.R. James, I regard his stories as being well-structured and intelligent entertainment, which is more than enough for me in any medium. I'm looking at this in a very simple way. I've no interest in "theories" of horror fiction and what I object to is the Freudians who go out of their way to put a narrow and in most cases unwarranted sexual interpretation on everything, for example the "evident" sadomasochism of Tom and Jerry. Any sexual interpretation I have seen of M.R. James's stories comes across as ludicrous to me. However, E.F. Benson is another story.
|
|