Re: Robert Aickman
 

To get back on topic, I've only read Cold Hand in Mine (best collection of ghost stories I've read to date). Where to go from there??

Re: Robert Aickman
 

Unlike with other writers there isn't really a bad place to start with Aickman's short fiction. I'd say the same for Ligotti. All the collections are brilliant. I will say We are for the Dark is neglected, as is EJH's place in ghost story history.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

I don't think I've encountered a single bad story from Aickman. Aickman is simply sublime on all fronts.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

When the passion for Art remain stronger than the ego's all temptations to adapt to public market for commercial success ...

Re: Robert Aickman
 

His talent even applied to his work as an anthologist. The Fontana books are exceptionally well structured, and I love Aickman's introductions and how each book (bar one) features a ghost story of his own that further clarifies his criteria and respect for the form as one of high artistry and philosophical depth.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

Sorry James, that jab about 'House of the Russians' and anti-weird was directed at me so I'm finishing this political thing.

Why are we surprised that Aickman was possibly a Mosley supporter? It's been known for a while and we've even had discussions of it on this board (I'd imagine just searching 'Growing Boys' would be enough to find it).

There was a time when people took a certain glee in pointing this out as it highlighted the hypocrisy of persons bashing the literary value of Lovecraft's work whilst applauding Aickman. Seriously: people complaining about SJWism and message fic should realise how immeasurably better things are now than they were in the 2000s when over-enthusiastic fans of Ramsey Campbell (who have since mellowed out) dominated the British Horror scene trying to enforce some spurious weird-activist variant on Ken Loach. One might not like Laird Barron or Scott Nicolay's work but the last I knew neither of those parties actively attacked others for not writing like them.

Aickman
 

Cold Hand In Mine or Painted Devils was my first encounter with Aickman.
I saw it in a used bookshop, and it had been inscribed.
Not by Aickman, rather the previous owner who scrawled -
"I do not like these sorts of stories at all!!!"
I laughed out loud and immediately purchased it.
Over the years, I have bought more of his work.
My least favorite remains The Model: A Novel Of The Fantastic.
I've tried reading it as a historical spoof, as campy horror, or as a writing exercise.
It never clicked for me, and this spring I sold it to a local used bookshop.
Maybe the next reader will appreciate it more.
And no, I did not inscribe my opinion of the book.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

I don't understand why Pages from Young Girl's Journal was his most acclaimed tale in his lifetime, but I can enjoy all of Aickman's stories – even Growing Boys, though it's pretty damn low in my ranking of his work.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

My favourite bit of Aickman comes from his Delius Notes...

“As there is no intrinsic virtue in denigration, 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. Normally, love is not blind but clairvoyant. […] Moreover, there is some degree of absolute nobility in praise; and a high degree of ignominy in belittlement, even in justified belittlement."

Re: Robert Aickman
 

Absolutely no one who's even remotely familiar with Aickman's private life and character would be surprised. The incident of the greyhound and the bicycle pump has already been mentioned, as have several of his other thoroughly indecent activities.

Whatever "man of his time" defenses can be mounted, Aickman’s paleo-misogyny was a manifestation less of toxic than of outright biohazardous masculinity. Once, at a party they both attended in 1959, Elizabeth Jane Howard was discussing her recent novel The Sea Change with a group of admirers. Aickman inserted himself into the group, removed a cricket ball from his pocket, and tossed it some ways ahead of them onto the lawn. As Howard explicated some of the difficulties involved in the composition of her book, Aickman enjoined her to "Be a good girl and fetch the ball, EJH!" Those present did their best to ignore Aickman's crude attempts at humor, but he persisted in drawing their attention to the ball and repeating“Fetch it like a good girl, EJH. Follow the pretty rubber orb.”

Besides being a fascist Nazi who rarely paid taxes and would in the privacy of his home repeatedly fondle small commemorative pictures of the monarchy, Aickman was once heard to remark, “We really need another twenty Hitlers. It’s a shame they don’t grow on trees, like medlars or pale white peaches.”

Aickman's grandfather was Richard Marsh, author of the popular Victorian supernatural novel The Beetle. Aickman had conceived of a sequel, The Beetle II: The Love Bug – Triumph of the Saxon Will, Part I: Step Up 2 The Streets, the plot of which was to concern an invincible German automobile possessed of its own inner volition, and which he asked Elizabeth Jane Howard to write, promising he would pay her in “cubes of brown sugar – as many as are required.” Howard made a valiant attempt at an initial treatment, but Aickman's extreme dissatisfaction with the results dissuaded her from any further involvement. In her 2002 autobiography Slipstream, Howard recounts how, regardless of how she emended the manuscript, Aickman would work himself up into a fury and repeat,

“More miniskirts, more Volkswagens, more Hitler!"

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.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

Aickman's views diminish the purpose of reviews. By assiging virtue to positivity and ignominy to negativity, he misses the point. The virtue of reviews resides strictly in their honesty, accuracy, and authenticity.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

OK, I’ll buy that.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

But having said that, I think reviewers should choose to review works that they have an instinct of love about. Often such instincts work out. They seem to do so... with the books I get.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

Has it been confirmed that Robert Aickman read Lovecraft? And did he comment on the quality of Lovecraft's writings?

The two were very different writers, but it would still be interesting to hear Aickman's opinion given his undisputed awareness of high standards in literature and art.

The mainstream critic elite tend to see Lovecraft as a 'bad writer', but these self-proclaimed experts are too dull-witted to be self-aware of the fact that they hold that negative opinion simply for political reasons. They are mentally closed off from Lovecraft's exceptional literary talent.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

Aickman spoke disparagingly of horror stories and I suspect he would have found Lovecraft's work too lurid and tasteless.
However his tastes were sometimes surprising. He preferred Night of the Living Dead to The Leopard Man.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

I wouldn't be too surprised if that is so. They had different perspectives and aesthetic preferences, Lovecraft being more direct and overtly physical in his approach.

Anyhow, some say that "Ringing the Changes" appears to be a homage to "The Shadow Over Innsmouth".

M. R. James is another writer, ... who had a low opinion of Lovecraft.

I have high respect for all three writers.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

Aickman thought The Music of Erich Zann was the only good Lovecraft story. Definitely not a fan. There are a lot of great British writers of supernatural fiction who either disliked Lovecraft's style or never mentioned him. As a Lovecraft fan I am fine with this. Clive Barker isn't a Lovecraft fan, and I think he's the equal of him as a horror writer.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

Yeah, that's what I meant by authenticity, I guess. Approaching the material in good faith, with a solid understanding of the form it represents, and a willingness and a capacity to appreciate all it has to offer. But without inherent bias towards positivity or negativity, as well.

Someone should have pointed out to Bob that criticism that only praises isn't criticism. It's PR.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

Blanket rules are useless, but I think a danger of 'negative' reviewers who market themselves as such for their 'brand' is that it often seems as if the critic is a competitor trying to 'beat' the work they're reviewing rather than actually trying to engage with it properly, often scoring own-goals in the process of rushing to find fault where there isn't one. This was my issue with S. T. Joshi's review of the Southern Reach trilogy and my general feeling regarding a lot of internet critics, such as that Nostalgic Critic person.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

Analysis leading to praise is my optimal goal, assuming the book itself allows, as I would expect from any book I choose to get.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

Your approach to criticism is admirable.

Most of the criticism I read is pushing an agenda. I don't mean political agenda. I'm fine with Marxist, feminist or racial critiques of texts and think that in an age of American concentration camps and and the rise of fascism that art is a good place for these discussions. No, the main agenda seems to be one of the ego of the critic, which is a wall stopping the critic from understanding the work. Many don't want to understand the work. They want to write an entertaining, barbed piece to show off, which I think I understand on some level, but it means a lot of the criticism I read is essentially useless as anything but potential entertainment. It's rare I don't read a book or see a movie I was interested in due to bad reviews.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

I think there is a difference between reviews and real criticism, not that the former can't contain the latter. However, the former is just part of the media, a kind of elaboration of "What's on and where to go", so that the reviewer is like a cultural tour guide with a tour guide's patter.

Reviewers have a job to do, and it's a worthwhile job, I think. But, for instance, it tends to include things like avoiding spoilers, which would inhibit a serious critic. It's in this kind of thing that we can begin to see distinctions.

Criticism really, it seems to me, is an act of engaging deeply (usually publicly and with the written word) with a particular text or work of art as a model of the kind of contemplation that is possible in relation to art. I don't see why this contemplation shouldn't include an exploration of what seem to be the flaws of any given piece. Having said that, a failure to see a piece of art on its own terms (possibly as well as from other angles) is, indeed, a critical failure.

I agree that using barbs merely for entertainment is more in line simply with a reviewer's patter and is far less appropriate to proper criticism.

On the whole I tend to agree with Samuel Johnson's dictum that he who praises everyone, praises no one.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

Passage (comparing railway- and waterway-possessed people) written by Robert Aickman in 1967 and published in ‘The River Runs Uphill’ (1986) :

“…the railway movement, such as it is, is crippled by the temperamental limitations that Freud divined. They manifest mainly in obsession with detail, in inability to perceive the whole wood as being in any way as real as the separate trees, even the separate, intricate, fascinating leaves, all so different from one another. The railway-possessed man (it is always a man) tends to be a Freudian obsessional walking.
[…] The waterway-possessed man or woman is more likely to be hallucinatory than obsessional. Water winding and twisting between banks; rising and falling by locks and weirs; cataracting or quiescent beneath the arches of bridges; much hidden from the common world; secret and initiatory; decked by beautiful buildings as by bountiful botany: water either sparkling and glinting or sullen and boding; at once tended and untendable – and ultimately uncontrollable; always a little mysterious, with a life of its own, like a cat; water is of all sex symbols the superlative, and where the sea is sadistic, as Swinburne divined, the river or canal is sweetly seductive. Conflict, and bitter, inexpressible, often unthinkable, feelings are certain. The water-possessed are likely to be inwardly driven; to cling to their separate, private dreams with the desperation of the drowning; to beset with strange ferocity all conceived of as rivals.“

Re: Robert Aickman
 

This line might have gotten a chuckle out of me, once upon a time.

"They are unable to perceive the whole, being too fixated on the individual trees, and even on all the separate leaves. Those intricate, beautiful, particolored leaves, so fascinatingly DIFFERENT from each other...."

His description of the railway movement is more than a little evocative of that curious social phenomenon known as "fandom" today. But as i understand it, that is not only men, perhaps not even largely men.



Something I wanted to touch on here, but have mostly forgotten now, is an impression I got from reading Aickman's World Fantasy Award address. He made a few remarks in there that seemed to suggest an outlook that verged on antinatalism or a sort of cosmic pessimism at least.

It might have been his comments on religion, about which he seemed to have an ambivalent attitude. I believe he acknowledges the need for a belief in a world beyond this one, due to the general misery of most people's lives, but he also raises the possibility that God may in fact be the Devil. (Though, as I recall, he also admits that he doesn't address this idea in his fiction, so as not to upset his readers. Quite unlike Lovecraft, say.)

Re: Robert Aickman
 

I wonder if Tartarus will be printing softcover versions of their Aickman collections. I own the original two book set, but I would prefer others as reading copies. The hardcover price is prohibitive. The Faber and Faber, beyond not being true reprints, don't seem up to snuff.
Does anyone know if Tartarus has any plans for the softcover versions?

Re: Robert Aickman
 

" I own the original two book set, but I would prefer others as reading copies, but the hardcover price is prohibitive. "

I would be interested in seeing this. I also like to have inexpensive "reading copies" suitable for travel along with finebound editions.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

Tartarus Press only has the rights for the hardcover reprints of original Aickman collections (albeit that they have been augmented.) I believe that Faber have ALL paperback rights, although they have chosen to only issue a few titles at the moment.

Scrolling down through the comments, I love the Aickman quotes that Des has provided. Freudianism, like Christianity, is a wonderful belief system that enables followers to understand the world exactly as they would like to see it. :)

But I am not sure if Cannibal Cop’s comparison of railway enthusiasts to fandom is quite correct. I must admit that I have more and more time for people who immerse themselves in obscure and arcane (some may say pointless) knowledge. Whether they are train-spotters, enthusiasts for static-engines, ornithologists, scholars of Coptic texts, obsessive collectors of cigarette packets, or bibliophiles. At heart, these people acquire information for its own sake, and true enthusiasts share that knowledge with anyone who will listen to them. However, this is rarely about self-aggrandisement or self-promotion. And that is where such enthusiasts often differ from people in fandom…

Scrolling further down … When it comes to criticism, of course, there has never been a totally unbiased critic. All we can hope for is to find critics who share our own prejudices and preferences. I have tended to find Peter Tennant at Black Static a reliable critic, although it may just be that we have similar tastes. I’m sad to see him stepping down. Other critics in our field, like S.T. Joshi, are worth reading, but one takes their prejudices into account.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

I see what you're saying, but just to be clear, I didn't intend that comparison. I was only talking about Aickman's comments about "the railway movement"--I'm not even sure this includes rail enthusiasts; perhaps he was talking about political lobbyists. But it's his (largely negative) characterization that brought fandom to mind for me.

On the whole, I tend to agree with you. Except about ornithology, which I consider a vital subject of central importance to all of us. Which no doubt makes me sound like just another obsessive.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

Do we know of Aickman's opinion of Henry James' ghost stories? He didn't include any in his Fontana series. H. James was such a huge influence on Walter de la Mare, Oliver Onions and the form of the psychological ghost story Aickman was writing that Aickman's silence seems like ambivalence or dismissal.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

My instinct is that RA was imbued with all sorts of literature and I have satisfied myself he was into European literature like Thomas Mann, possibly more than into traditional ghost stories, although the latter were what he found himself well known for because his own written literature appealed to Ghost story lovers.