[ Note: In The Attempted Rescue, Aickman wrote about a dear childhood friend who totally changed as she grew older. She became involved in "isms" and lost her sweetness and her sense of humour - sort of the same thing that happens to puppies as they grow older to become the rabied guardians of the boundaries of our separate adult selves. In more than one sense then, we well might wonder if it IS all 'the same dog'. ]
rbadac (April 16, 1998)
[Putting On "The Same Dog"]Ah yes, that damn dog...
It all seems like sex to me. Hilary comes from an all-male family. Even his mum is dead as the story opens. The whole structure of his relationship with Mary Rossiter takes a 180 degree flip when Mary locks eyes with the dog, and she suddenly becomes a grown-up, leaving poor Hilary alone with his innocence.
Compare the descriptions of the dog with the mysterious 'naked' man:
“It was a big, shapeless animal, with long, untidy legs, which shimmered oddly, perhaps as it sought a firm grip on the buried and slippery stones. The dog's yellow skin seemed almost hairless. Blotchy and draggled, it resembled the wall outside. Even the dog's eyes were a flat, dull yellow.”And:“...a man was looking over, installed at the very extremity of the internal angle. There was about half of him visible, and he seemed tall and slender and bald. Hilary failed to notice how he was dressed: if indeed, he was dressed at all.”And Mary's 'death', described secondhand by Eileen:“She was interfered with, and mauled about. Bitten all over, they say, poor little thing. But it's been hushed up proper, and you'd better hurry and forget all about her. That's all you *can* do, isn't it?”And to the fabulous places on the maps Hilary and Mary drew as children, Giantland and Fairyland, we must finally add 'Maryland', a place where Hilary was barred from entering, by the subterfuguous designs of a mysterious adult world he never did manage to be admitted to, or some such rot. "Perhaps Hilary was one of those men who are designed for one woman only." He never gets laid in THIS story, at any rate.Or as Callcutt says, "Good God!"
rbadac
oOo
James Michael Rogers (April 17, 1998)
rbadac wrote:
>And to the fabulous places on the maps Hilary and Mary drew as children,
>Giantland and Fairyland, we must finally add 'Maryland', a place where Hilary
>was barred from entering, by the subterfuguous designs of a mysterious adult
>world he never did manage to be admitted to, or some such rot. "Perhaps
>Hilary was one of those men who are designed for one woman only."
As Mary at one point says to him, "there can't always be a gate, you know."
James
oOo
rbadac (April 17, 1998)
[The Same Dog, or one just like it]That's right. And there's always a dog with a bigger key!
rbad to worse
oOo
Dr. Nick (April 15, 1998)
["The Same Dog" (to Bill B.) [Beware! spoiler]]Read this one ages ago but remember it well. Are you sure the briefly glimpsed (and possibly naked) man is actually a manifestation of the strange dog? I have a feeling that fellow was like a former "owner" , if you will, of the pooch. This honour is then conferred upon Mary after she is killed, leading to that very odd ending with its cute little pun. That is all the logic I can see in the story; beyond that it's all a big foggy ~MYSTERY~ ooooh.
oOo
James Michael Rogers (April 16, 1998)
Just to show how for we can all differ on this story, I thought that the man was an aspect of the protagonist's own misunderstood (and dangerous) sexuality. Perhaps the later female phantom as well. Reminds me in this respect, as well as that of the suddenly vanishing heroine and the missing mother figure, of Aickman's "The Fetch".James
oOo
Bill Barnett (April 16, 1998)
Fresh from rereading it, I have some comments that I'm sure you've been anxiously awaiting. I see it as a tale of jealousy and jilted love.rbadac wrote:
> Compare the descriptions of the dog with the mysterious 'naked' man:The hairlessness is why I still believe the man and the dog are one and the same. And I don't think there was an "owner" present at the initial encounter because of the house's state of disrepair, and its subsequent improvement under Mary's residence. As to the origin of the dog... I think it's just a macguffin (ditto the contents of "The Inner Room", the briefcase in Pulp Fiction, the contents of the church in "Hand in Glove"...) and don't worry about it except as an exercise.
Mary is mesmerized by the dog, and Hilary feels the first pangs of jealousy. Can one be jealous of a dog? That seems silly, so when Hilary looks back he "sees" a man instead, legitimizing his jealousy.
> And Mary's 'death', described secondhand by Eileen:
Or, she "left him" for the "dog". If a lover leaves us for another, is it not a natural response to blame that other for "stealing" our love from us, and to view that other as evil incarnate? (Not that I have any personal experience along those lines, of course, I want that to be PERFECTLY CLEAR.) And I don't think it's far-fetched that one might think of murder (in this case) as a metaphor for the same thing. The dog claimed Mary just as Chapman claimed Lennon.
Hilary never figures out what Mary sees (or saw) in the dog (animal magnetism or the like) and thus never plays the mating game, not understanding the rules. Hmm, I guess it is about sex after all. In that case the dog is a symbol of sexuality, or what Hilary lacks.
Hmmm again, here is another story of a sexually naive, "sensitive" young man going into the army, as in "Niemandswasser" in the same collection. Anyone care to speculate on Aickman's attraction to that theme?
Bill B.
P.S. If this post doesn't make any sense it's because I'm up way past my bedtime.
oOo
rbadac (April 17, 1998)
[Hey, Dogface]Bill Barnett wrote:
> Hmmm again, here is another story of a sexually naive, "sensitive" young man
> going into the army, as in "Niemandswasser" in the same collection. Anyone
> care to speculate on Aickman's attraction to that theme?
You're in the Army now...
You're not BEHIND THE PLOW...
You'll never get rich
By DIGGING A DITCH
You're in the Army now!Sgt. Badac
oOo
rbadac (April 17, 1998)
Bill Barnett wrote:
> Hmmm again, here is another story of a sexually naive, "sensitive" young man
> going into the army, as in "Niemandswasser" in the same collection. Anyone
> care to speculate on Aickman's attraction to that theme?
You're in the Army now...
You're not BEHIND THE PLOW...
You'll never get rich
By DIGGING A DITCH
You're in the Army now!Sgt. Badac
oOo
rbadac (April 17, 1998)
[Hey, wait a minute...]Dammit, if I had to accidentally post something twice, why couldn't it have been something better than THAT bit of doggerel?
Oh, well, la de dah. At least it wasn't bulk e-mail.
oOo
William Allison (April 18, 1998)
Hey Sarge, would that be Aickman's Army?oOo
rbadac (April 20, 1998)
[Rank and File]But of course. And I'm probably quite presumptious giving myself the rank of 'Sergeant', but as we all know, being a Private in Aickman's Army puts one in a rather 'high-risk' group, if you know what I mean.
On a remotely related note, is it just me, or have we been recently inundated with posts of a RATHER salacious nature?
Either someone is reading even more into these Freudian observations of ours than even we or Aickman ever thought possible, or we've been unfairly targeted as a bunch of poor nerds who don't get out much.
Or maybe we've just been targeted, period. What a bummer. I don't guess there is anything we can do about this, is there?
rbadac
oOo
Robert Kunath (April 20, 1998)
[Rank and File--Awful spam]Maybe it is appropriate that we received this vile spam as an object lesson in what makes Robert Aickman great: restraint, delicacy, and cultivation. This x-rated spam is so lurid that it's ludicrous--this is what they think attracts people to their product?! I do think it's terrible that these evil spammers can inundate us with smut, though; I'd like to think that our ghost fiction discussions are appropriate for those of more tender years and I hate having our list filled this ugly stuff. I say we complain to the webmaster--I had some problems with my registration and the e-mail address I got was:
webmaster@dejanews.com
Dejanews advertises "spam-free discussion" so I'm sure they'd love to screen that stuff out.
Robert
oOo
Robert Kunath (April 17, 1998)
[Putting On "The Same Dog"/Aickman and the Erotic]Dear Bill,
Thanks for an acute analysis of "The Same Dog." You ask if anyone has any thoughts about Aickman's attraction to the situation of the sexually naive young man, and I do have a pretty vague, general idea. Someone posted a wonderful statement from Aickman (was it from one of the volumes of ghost stories that he edited?) that his stories were meant to direct us at enormous parts of ourselves of which we were unconscious (a bad paraphrase--sorry!). The content of many of his stories is Freudian, not just in the prominence of the erotic, but also in its depiction of powerful but inexplicable forces acting upon people. The situation of the sexually naive young man--and the subject of the erotic in general--is a consistent theme in Aickman’s stories, I think, because his ‘strange stories’ above all want to depict the tension between illusion (or fantasy) and reality, and there are very few situations in which that tension is so marked as in the experience of sex. "The Swords" is an especially straightforward example of that, as is "Marriage." What I think Aickman likes about that situation is the collision between immature sexual fantasy encountering the true (and, for Aickman, it would seem destructive) power of sex. Quite a few of Aickman's stories follow that basic plot line: along with "The Swords" and "Marriage," I'd add "Ravissante," "Never Visit Venice," and "The Stains." "Niemandswasser" doesn't quite fit the pattern, but has similarities, as does "Meeting Mr. Millar" (which I just re-read with enjoyment). I must say that Aickman seems to me to be the ONLY writer of supernatural fiction that I have read who is able to treat the erotic successfully. Horror all too often wants to combine sex and violence for effect, and I find the combination ugly. Aickman combines sex and dread, and that combination works, especially because of Aickman's exceptional delicacy as a writer (and I would say that both the supernatural story and the erotic story are successful only when a great deal is not described or explained). The only writer I have ever encountered who has done something similar with the erotic is Richard Adams in his novel *The Girl in a Swing.*
I'm looking forward to hearing other people's ideas!
Robert
oOo
Robert Suggs (April 18, 1998)
Robert,I just want to say that this is one of the most perceptive statements about Aickman I've read here. Bravo. Particularly the last part about why so much of the current eros/horror fusion doesn't work.
Any other opinions on "The Girl in a Swing?" I was afraid we'd get more little rabbits. Worth reading?
RoboOo
James Michael Rogers (April 19, 1998)
[Girl In A Swing]_Girl In A Swing_ is very, very good. Nary a rabbit in sight. Comparable to Aickman in some thematic respects, as well as to stuff like _Picnic At Hanging Rock_. Another of those books where you say "ghost story....I think".
James
oOo
Robert Suggs (April 18, 1998)
Bill Barnett wrote:
> Hilary never figures out what Mary sees (or saw) in the dog
> (animal magnetism or the like) and thus never plays the mating game...I don't know about all that, but it seems to me that this points up the real weakness of the story. The symbolism overwhelms the actual story-telling. The story makes sense on the symbolic psychological terms that were trendy at mid-century, but there are just a few too many narrative/logical lapses even for Aickman. Compare two other stories here, "The Inner Room" and "The Trains," and it seems to me that those stories are easier to read completely on a narrative level without worrying about the goldern symbolism. Any author owes us that, unless he's writing for a bunch of anthropology professors or something. "The Same Dog" is interesting, for sure, and actually more ghostly than some of his stories, but it's ultimately an exercise in manipulating imagery.
RoboOo
Robert Suggs (April 18, 1998)
rbadac wrote:
> Ah yes, that damn dog... It all seems like sex to me.I'm glad you said it instead of me. After "The Trains," I didn't want to seem to be Freddy Freud.
Go back and reread the original description of Mary. She is described for most of a page as something very like a doll. The boy has never been around a female before. The wall, impregnable (!) with peeling surface is a fairly blatant symbol. It's as much as secret as whatever's in The Inner Room.
And I did NOT want to deal with the naked, bald man poking up over the wall! It was clear that the dog appeared when Hilary, with his female name, first approached awareness of his sexuality. What does this say about his relationship to Callcutt? Then someone he interprets to be Mary (that's more important than whether or not she really is Mary) suddenly emerges from the grown-up, but still impregnable (!) structure that houses the dog.
That Aickman. That same Aickman.
Rob
oOo
rbadac (April 20, 1998)
Robert Suggs wrote:
> I'm glad you said it instead of me. After "The Trains,"
> I didn't want to seem to be Freddy Freud.Any time. And I'M glad YOU mentioned the Calcutt thing, instead of ME!
rbadac (not that there's anything WRONG with that!)
oOo
Robert Kunath (April 18, 1998)
[Adams, *The Girl in A Swing*]Dear Rob,
Thanks for the kind words about my thoughts on Aickman, and I thought I'd add a few words about "The Girl in a Swing." I'd recommend it as an interesting example of a story that combines the erotic and the ghostly successfully. "More little rabbits" it's not, quaranteed! The sexual aspect is somewhat more explicit than in Aickman, but it is still handled with considerable delicacy, and the supernatural elements are authentically ominous. To my mind there is a central implausibility in the characterization, but it only emerges at the end, at which time it's easy to forgive because so much of what's gone on before has been successful. I don't recommend the movie, though: it's very hard to make an authentically ghostly movie, and it's very hard to make an authentically erotic movie, and it's just about impossible to do both at once.
There's one particular passage in "The Girl in a Swing" that reminds me of Aickman, where Adams talks about the power of the erotic, comparing it to a sacred grove in which there are lovers and joy, but also corpses and horror. That's the power that fuels a number of Aickman's best stories.
Robert
oOo
rbadac (April 20, 1998)
Robert Kunath wrote:
> I don't recommend the movie, though: it's very hard to make an
> authentically ghostly movie, and it's very hard to make an authentically
> erotic movie, and it's just about impossible to do both at once.And that's being kind, too. That movie made me feel funny, and not ha-ha funny, either. I really should read the book. I liked Adams' little bunnies, though, and I don't usually like little bunnies.
> There's one particular passage in "The Girl in a Swing" that reminds me of
> Aickman, where Adams talks about the power of the erotic, comparing it to
> a sacred grove in which there are lovers and joy, but also corpses and horror.
> That's the power that fuels a number of Aickman's best stories.Indeed it does. The Little Death and the Big One. Allow me to add my congrats to Robert for a fine analysis.
rbadac
ooOoo