rbadac (April 20, 1998)Read this again last night. Has this been discussed yet in this group?I don't mind telling you I am a BIG fan of Hartley's ghost and horror stories. He has a marvelous style that is rich in interesting detail; his dialogue especially has several levels of meaning, and rewards careful reading and re-reading. After thoroughly enjoying this, one of his best forays in the genre, I went back and read Julia Briggs' summation of him in her excellent NIGHT VISITORS: THE RISE AND FALL OF THE ENGLISH GHOST STORY and was slapped upside the head by her opinion that Hartley had real problems with the ghost story in her view, among them an apparently ill-conceived (she thought) ambition to integrate the supernatural with modern-day settings, which (she thought) tended to dilute their efficacy. Anybody have a take on this? It surprised the hell out of me. I felt that was one of his strengths, but maybe I'm speaking from an even more modern viewpoint, and am thus perhaps more forgiving of him for this?
The story itself was really outstanding, I thought. Check it out in the ubiquitous THE OXFORD BOOK OF ENGLISH GHOST STORIES, which I'm fairly certain everybody here has! There are several impressive devices he uses in the narrative to move the story forward, and I found them to be extremely refreshing and entertaining.
Her opinion of Hartley notwithstanding, Julia Briggs' book is an absolutely essential study of the subject. Hopefully your library has a copy, as I think it is out of print; if they do, have a look at it as well- it's definitely squarely in the field of what we discuss here on a regular basis.
rbadac
oOo
William Allison (April 21, 1998)
rbadac wrote:
>Read this again last night. Has this been discussed yet in this group?Nope, lets have at it!
>I don't mind telling you I am a BIG fan of Hartley's ghost and horror
>stories.Where many got into ghost fiction via MRJ, I did via Hartley; he is still one of my favorite writers. I disagree with Briggs (so does Jack Sullivan- see his Hartley rave-up in ELEGANT NIGHTMARES). Hartley's stories work not so much in spite of the settings but *because of them*. His writing is elegant, funny and completely chilling all at once.
>There are several impressive devices he uses in the narrative
>to move the story forward, and I found them to be extremely
>refreshing and entertaining.I especially like the bit with the radio- brilliant!
>Her opinion of Hartley notwithstanding, Julia Briggs' book is an absolutely
>essential study of the subject. Hopefully your library has a copy, as I think
>it is out of print; if they do, have a look at it as well- it's definitely
>squarely in the field of what we discuss here on a regular basis.I've wanted one for some time, haven't turned a copy up yet...
Bill
oOo
Robert Suggs (April 21, 1998)
I've never come across a copy of Briggs' book, though it seems to be one of the definitive summations. In regard to the weird opinion of Hartley, tell me if my memory is right re her dealing with Wakefield. It seems I remember reading (it would have been in one of Barbara Roden's excellent Wakefield introductions) that Briggs barely mentions Wakefield, and gets the title of They Return at Evening wrong. I can't check, because I'd wake my wife (They Return at Evening 2: The Sequel)! It's hard to imagine short shrifting H R Wakefield when it comes to this subject--but again, check me, I don't want to be spreading disinformation again.I'm going to reread "Visitor." I've loved the Hartleys I've read. That one actually confused me on first reading, as for some reason I missed what he was doing with the radio stuff--I wasn't tuned in. I did NOT miss the buildup to the conclusion, perhaps one of the unforgettable climaxes to any ghost story in the language (right up there with "Whistle" and "Ash-Tree" by James, and Onions' "Beckoning"). Perhaps after all these Aickmans, in which the characters and reader mutually walk away scratching their heads at the end, it will be nice to read a down and dirty pot-boiler again. (P. S. I found Onions' "The Rope in the Rafter" to be stirring in its ending, too).
Rob
oOo
rbadac (April 21, 1998)
Robert Suggs wrote:
> In regard to the weird opinion of Hartley, tell me if my
> memory is right re her dealing with Wakefield. It seems I remember reading (it
> would have been in one of Barbara Roden's excellent Wakefield introductions)
> that Briggs barely mentions Wakefield, and gets the title of They Return at
> Evening wrong.Seems like I remember something like that, too- like she called it, 'They Return At Midnight', or something equally ludicrous. I'll bring my copy to work tomorrow.
> (P. S. I found Onions' "The Rope
> in the Rafter" to be stirring in its ending, too).Now THAT'S a novella I wouldn't mind discussing, if it hasn't been done (since I've ALREADY read it!)
Here's me reading a 'new' novella:
Okay, lessee... 'It was a dark and stormy ni-BOSCO, GET OFFA ME- it was a dark and stor- HELLO? NO, I DON'T WANT A SUBSCRIPTION TO THE PAPER, NO, THANK YOU ANYWAY, BYE- it was a dark and- WHAT? NO I DON'T NEED MY LAWN CUT, I LIKE IT LIKE THAT, GO AWAY- it was a dark and stormy- WHOA, BETTER TURN THAT DOWN, MY NEIGHBORS WILL CIRCULATE A PETITION- it was a dark and stormy I'M HUNGRY. WONDER WHAT'S IN THE ICEBOX? night, and the wind whistled eerily through the yews behind the COFFEE ICE CREAM churchyard where Squire Haversham had only lately finished burying TOASTER STRUDEL the old miser, who was found in his chair the previous morning by the neighbors, staring in unblinking horror at BAKLAVA a sight known only to him. When he was brought into the vestry, a voice was heard to whisper HELLO? NO I DON'T WANT TO SAVE ON MY LONG DISTANCE BILL, I NEVER CALL ANYONE LONG DISTANCE 'Now he shows up in church. Too late!', followed by a thin, piercing laugh YOU LITTLE BRATS STAY OUTTA MY YARD, AND QUIT THROWING DEAD STUFF UP ON MY PORCH! that seemed to chill one to the very soul OWWW, WHAT THE- EEEUUUUWWW...
Oh, well, you get the idea. I suppose I've only myself to blame.
rbadac
oOo
rbadac (April 21, 1998)
> >Her opinion of Hartley notwithstanding, Julia Briggs' book is an absolutely
> >essential study of the subject. Hopefully your library has a copy, as I think
> >it is out of print; if they do, have a look at it as well- it's definitely
> >squarely in the field of what we discuss here on a regular basis.
>
> I've wanted one for some time, haven't turned a copy up yet...
>Hey, I've got MY library's copy right now! E-mail your FAX number, and I'll fax you some pages if you like! : )
Or maybe mail you a few more? My abuse of the copier here at work is legendary.
rbadac
oOo
Randy Money (April 21, 1998)
rbadac wrote:
> Read this again last night. Has this been discussed yet in this group?It's been brought up but not discussed since I've been on. I'll need to reread it. It's been a year or so.
> I went back and read Julia Briggs' summation of him in
> her excellent NIGHT VISITORS: ...
> and was slapped upside the head by her opinion that Hartley had real
> problems with the ghost story in her view, among them an apparently
> ill-conceived (she thought) ambition to integrate the supernatural with
> modern-day settings, which (she thought) tended to dilute their efficacy.Maybe I'm misunderstanding her concern but didn't the James boys, Wharton, and de la Mare all write from their present? There was a certain disdain among some mystery fans when Dashiell Hammett, to paraphrase Raymond Chandler, took murder out of the country houses and put it back in the streets where it belonged. I wonder if Brigg's reaction is analogous: Hartley didn't, so far as I recall, use antiquarians. Maybe her rejection of his work has more to do with that than with a modern setting. I can only imagine what she thinks of Straub's _Ghost Story_.
Randy
oOo
rbadac (April 21, 1998)
Randy Money wrote:
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding her concern but didn't the James boys, Wharton,
> and de la Mare all write from their present? There was a certain disdain
> among some mystery fans when Dashiell Hammett, to paraphrase Raymond Chandler,
> took murder out of the country houses and put it back in the streets where it
> belonged. I wonder if Brigg's reaction is analogous: Hartley didn't, so far
> as I recall, use antiquarians. Maybe her rejection of his work has more to do
> with that than with a modern setting. I can only imagine what she thinks of
> Straub's _Ghost Story_.No kidding. The whole slant of NIGHT VISITORS seemed to be that the ghost story as a movement essentially died after De La Mare, and of course we KNOW that ain't so.
Still, I can't be too hard on her- it really IS a great study, right up there with Penzoldt, Bleiler, Sullivan, and the various introductions to anthologies written by Asquith, Aickman, Hartley, Wakefield, Lamb, and others.
rbadac
ooOoo