Re: Robert Aickman
 

It's interesting to note that nearly all the writers we admire in the field of weird fiction have feet of clay; many tweek to the right or were nearly overt fascists/racists : Aickman, Borges, Lovecraft, Machen (who allegedly supported Franco during the Spanish Civil War), Nabokov who supported the Vietnam War, Poe who justified slavery, and I could go on and on.
So what is the point? Does any of this disqualify the worth of their WRITING? I'm sorry, but this minimalist and reductionist critique smells too much of Stalin and the politburo guidelines for literary criticism . This leads to censorship of the worst kind, the one of the mind that is self-enclosed.
So Aickman was a closet fascist, mysoginist, and a jerk, so that means I can't enjoy his writing because if I do I'm justifying his fascism, misogyny, and nastiness. If you read Lovecraft then you must be a racist. Stalin lives!

Re: Robert Aickman
 

http://gif-finder.com/wp-content/upl...king-about.gif

Nobody here has made that claim. Every Aickman fan knows he was very right-wing. Nobody is trying to censor anything. Nobody supports Stalin (??). Don't fall for one banned troll ranting at straw communists over and over to justify bad alt-right takes. There is no issue here. It's all manufactured outrage, and I'm getting tired of suggesting we move on because... how is this not all completely obvious? Did Justin's post need canned laughter?

Re: Robert Aickman
 

There's a lot I find wrong, even potentially harmful, about this line of thinking. Love can be faked, praise is often insincere or fulsome. Positivity can be bought by factors like nepotism, politics, outright bribery or exchange of favors.

Negativity can also by motivated by such petty and corrupt motives, of course, but it can also be constructive, inspiring both artist and audience to do better, casting light on weaknesses that would otherwise go unchallenged. Unwarranted and aggressive negativity is at best unhelpful, but empty, thoughtless or false praise is as unhelpful in its own way, encouraging laziness and complacency and belittling the idea of merit.

In sum, I'm sorry that the energy he devoted to blurbing Delius wasn't channeled into producing another tale.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

I think this is the crucial bit:

“the critic who resorts to it, should be required to pass a test of qualification and sensitivity, at least twice as stringent as that imposed upon a critic who loves.”

A single aberrant review (often the only one) of a book could floor that author for life.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

“In sum, I'm sorry that the energy he devoted to blurbing Delius wasn't channeled into producing another tale.”

I am glad he did both.

Reviews can be just as important as what they review.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

In Aickman's day, maybe, and I suppose in that context his statement makes a little more sense. But established critics no longer possess the sort of godly authority they once did. Now everyone's a critic, and a critic of critics, to boot. Which reduces the possibility of that kind of injustice, but also introduces the possibility of new abuses and misuses of criticism.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

I don't have a problem with the idea of critics being required to pass such a test, by the way. That actually is the most constructive part of his denigration of the denigrators.

The idea of applying such a test selectively, though, is more than a little silly.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

Yes, a loving reviewer should be empirically tested.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

Karl Marx could appreciate Balzac and quote him in spite of the fact that Balzac was a monarchist and a reactionary. I close my case.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

“Reviews can be just as important as what they review.”

Hopefully an ongoing synergy.
A great work is never static, on its own, though it should be treated as if on its own, as something beyond the author’s further volition (once it is crystallised in print) and as something beyond any knowledge about that author.
A triangulation of all such reviews.