Clear, unscaleable, aheadThere's a different version of the last verse if you're interested. Every so often a poet just can't bring themselves to abandon a work -- think of FitzGerald's endless tinkering with the Rubaiyat. ("The Moving Finger writes..." And gets endlessly rewrit, eh, Eddie?)
Rise the Mountains of Instead,
From whose cold cascading streams
None may drink except in dreams.
It's not just poets. John Whitbourn asked me to put together a cover for his new book Altered Englands, a collection of short stories from his thirty-year career as one of Britain's foremost fantasy authors. Acutely conscious of the honour, I vacillated between half a dozen designs. I started with the painting above by Albert Gleizes, which I thought had a nicely skew-whiff cricketer vibe, but Gleizes isn't in public domain for another three years. Darn it.So then I tried using this cakes-&-ale image by John Currie, but that was too much of "England" and not enough of the "Altered" and eventually it got rejected in favour of Eric Ravilious's take on the Long Man of Wilmington. Over the centuries the Long Man has altered quite a bit in appearance, and certainly nowadays he's no work of art (unlike the White Horse, say) but there are still some who believe the figure predates the early modern period. John tells me that one interpretation is that he's not holding a couple of staves but in fact standing guard in a doorway, a role I remembered from The Sandman #19 by (do I need to tell you?) Gaiman and Vess:
The door the Long Man is opening in this case is onto a varied selection of stories ranging from the darkly horrific to the purely marvellous and always with the author's startling imagination and sparkling humour inviting you into a state of total immersion.
Among the stories is the very last of the Binscombe Tales, never published before. Altered Englands is an eclectic, idiosyncratic and erudite mix, as you'd expect of the author, with subjects that range from Binscombe to Bratislava, from Allah to evolution, from Stalin to Sussex, and from castle lords to Charleston. And just when you think you have the measure of John Whitbourn's interests, he surprises you by throwing in a shaggy-dog yarn about none other than Jimi Hendrix. A bonus is that every story comes with the author's notes, which further reveal his lively imagination, wide reading and profound deliberation. Trump- and Brexit-supporting readers of this blog who complain about my occasional political posts might be pleased to discover that John holds diametrically opposite views on politics, ethics and even science/religion (I'm Starfleet officer, he's New York street cop) and only one of us has ever been photographed wearing black nail varnish and mascara*.
Talking of Charleston, Jamie lives near Firle in Sussex and a few years ago we took a look around both Charleston itself and the nearby Monk's House in Rodmell, home of Leonard and Virginia Woolf. One of the paintings we came across there is this mysterious image, which the curator described to me as The Liverpool Ghost but which is actually A Man with His Horse, and a Boy. Why mysterious? Why "ghost"? Take a closer look. It obviously intrigued the Woolfs and it suggests for me an encounter between H P Lovecraft and the Bloomsbury Group. That particular story isn't in Altered Englands, but there is one featuring Lytton Strachey. Didn't I say eclectic?
Here are strange and elementally wondrous tales to "stain the wind with leaves", as another poet put it. With Halloween coming and the nights drawing in it's the perfect fireside read. If we could dig Auden up for a quote I have a feeling he'd shout: "Trolls run scolding!" Don't let 'em get there first.
*In my defence, it was the '80s.
Without wanting to come across like Annie Wilkes, Dave, I rate Altered Englands (and Binscombe Tales) alongside the short stories of Stephen King, Richard Matheson and Roald Dahl. I’ve left a review on Amazon for anyone interested. I’ve also recently read and reviewed quite a lot of John’s other stuff, most recently the first two books in The Downs-Lord triptych, which are also excellent. I’ve just started the last one. I do like the piccy of that cricketer, by the way!
ReplyDeleteI’ve just read your link to Lytton Strachey, whose final words were supposedly, “if this is dying, then I don’t think much of it”, which I found sad, poignant and amusing.
You'll get no argument from me, Andy, though I rate the Binscombe Tales even higher than King, Matheson and Dahl -- and that's a high bar to clear.
DeleteI like also Strachey's retort to a military tribunal questioning his stance as a conscientious objector. The official asked, "Mr Strachey, what would you do if you saw a German soldier trying to violate your sister?" Strachey replied: "I would try to get between them."
:) I suppose as Binscombe and Altered Englands are both in my top ten and the other authors only have one entry in that list between them, I'm inclined to agree with you. And don't get me started on Triffids...!
DeleteMy wife's just said to me, are you still looking at that ruddy picture?! My wife's mentioned Picasso, Cezanne and Hogarth re the other pictures (and another chap she can't think of the name of - That art degree was money well spent then!) I shouldn't be too critical, I spent ten minutes looking at over a glass of wine and only just spotted the dog!
DeleteGot It! There's a Null borderline out of shot bottom left doing "I'm a little teapot".
DeleteI think the moral of the story re the above, Dave, is never drink and post! Very dangerous! I'm still not getting/seeing The Liverpool Ghost, by the way.
DeleteRegarding Mr Whitbourn, Downs-Lord Doomsday was another good 'un. I'm on hols, so will hopefully get to read a few more of his before the week's out.
I was watching People Like Us that you recommended last night. Funniest thing I've seen since The Office (that ironically caused its cancellation, according to Wiki).
Maybe you have to be psychic, Andy. (Personally I don't think it's a ghost at all, just a bit where the artist used too much dark paint.)
DeleteI had assumed People Like Us disappeared because of the public problems of poor old Chris Langham, but that came a few years later. I can't remember if I already recommended his movie Black Pond to you, but if you're enjoying PLU you should give it a look.
Ah! Although I assumed that bit, Dave, it didn't stop me looking for faces in clouds etc.
DeleteI've just looked at Black Pond. Having neither a Region 1 DVD player (I think) or Amazon Prime, it may have to wait a bit. On the plus side, PLU series 2, Time Trumpet and the Armando Iannucci shows popped up. I needed to order something extra for free delivery, so purchased FL Lich-Lord. There's another quid towards that retirement fund!
My family are approaching the end of the Dark Lord series. My son is demanding to know when books 5 to 100 are coming out? Get writing, Morris!
The writing is more Jamie's job, Andy, but I think it's highly likely there'll be a new DL book on the way next year.
DeleteExcellent news! My son will be best pleased. It qualifies as the only book series thus far where at the end of each book he hasn't said, "Well, that wasn't very good, was it?" Gamebooks or Dark Lord, Thomson! It's your choice!
DeleteI've just woken my son up. Not to tell him about the above, I was just watching the second episode of PLU. One of the funniest lines I've ever heard re East/West Sussex started me off (so weird given that's where Downs-Lord is set). My wife subsequently had to go into his room when summoned. Conversation (through still in use baby monitor) went something like "why is Daddy laughing?" A mumbled inaudible response from mum. Followed by "why is throwing a tape measure funny?"
The point you raise re Langham must highlight how problematic it is for you writers.
Clarification on my last sentence required relooking at it. Anything you do is indelible. How do you write anything of note under that level of scrutiny? At least, I think that's what I thought I meant!
DeleteYou mean like if it came out that I was a secret guest at Nigel Farage's parties after writing Can You Brexit, Andy? Don't worry, Jamie and I have led utterly shock-free and blameless lives. The worst anyone could pin on me are those mascara and nail varnish photos, and I think the negatives were destroyed.
DeleteIf you were a Tory that would be normal wouldn’t it? :-)
DeleteGood point! I better hide the oranges and the gimp gear.
DeleteSomething like that, Dave! Thanks for the reassurance! A shame PLU will never get a mainstream second wind, anyhow.
DeleteOn a lighter note and linking in with your oranges, my son as predicted was delighted when I delivered the news of a potential book 5 (I haven't told him there was no mention of books 6 through 100). So much so that he's spent some of the morning creating new weapons and spells for you. His best was probably "Marmalade Grenade". I've googled it and unfortunately there is a preserve product going by the same name. Oh well, back to the drawing board.
Sounds good, though, Andy. I'd certainly buy a marmalade grenade.
DeleteProviding it's shredless marmalade grenade, Dave, my son will approve!
DeleteI've just read that back. Marmalade Grenade Dave. A new superhero is born.
DeleteShredless? Noooooooooooo!
DeleteTo my mind it has to be lime marmalade. Actually I'll have to ask Jamie. He might prefer shredless/orange. He won't let me appear as a superhero, though. I'm already in there as a Storm Crow, after all.
DeleteWeren't you also on the school council or something, Dave? Jamie, get us out of this (ahem), sticky situation.
DeleteJust curious as to how you can have diametrically opposed views on science. Surely either you go with the evidence or you don't (in which case you are free to believe whatever you want, or perhaps whatever most closely aligns with your prejudices).
ReplyDeleteYou're right. To be more accurate, I should have said we hold diametrically opposed views on the validity of science and the value of the scientific method.
DeleteScience doesn’t always speak with one voice. There can be disagreements, often among scientists themselves, about what research/evidence actually proves. To pretend otherwise is reductive and, yes, unscientific.
DeleteResearch and evidence can't ever prove anything. What you're doing in science is looking for patterns in data set A and you formulate a model, ie a theory, and you use the theory to make a prediction of what you'll see if you go over there and look at data set B, or more usually do an experiment to get data set B. If the new observation contradicts the theory then you were wrong and it's back to the drawing board. But if it confirms your prediction that doesn't mean your model is proven, it just means it's a viable hypothesis and will do for now. Newton's laws were fine for most calculations but didn't explain the precession of the orbit of Mercury; the theory of relativity does the job better but no scientist thinks that makes it the last word. That's why I describe science as a method, not a set of assertions.
DeleteSometimes two theories both work, eg both refraction and the principle of least action predict the path of a light beam through glass; you can use least action in place of mechanics for the motion of a tossed ball. That's fine, both models are just maps of reality, they aren't (and never will be) reality itself. If several models all work, use whichever best fits the problem you're working on -- sometimes that's a matter of taste, eg I will avoid models that require a lot of numerical methods if possible. As for disagreement between scientists, again that is what science is for. It's a method of resolving those disputes, because one model will say you'll observe such-&-such a particle at such-&-such an energy, say, and the other model will say something different. The court of appeal is to do the experiment.
What does it mean to say somebody has the scientific manner of thinking? I look for data, I make sure I know where the data comes from, and if it's inconclusive I'll want more different sources to agree. Anecdotal evidence is useless. For instance, I had a friend who doubted tobacco causes lung cancer because he knew one old lady who reached the age of 90 despite smoking all her life. I tried to explain that smoking 20 cigarettes a day on average increases your risk of lung cancer by a factor of ten, but since your baseline risk is about 1% that still means that lots of heavy smokers will not get cancer. The non-scientist doesn't care about all the data; they know one old smoker and they therefore doubt all the science. The world is too complex for them to grasp in terms of models, so they fall back on anecdote and feeling. That's the pre-scientific method and I guess it does fine if you just want to make sure there are berries and a slab of meat outside the cave every evening.
DeleteYou also have to consider when new data or a new hypothesis contravenes a large body of workable models. That doesn't invalidate the new evidence, it just means you should scrutinize it more carefully. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," as Carl Sagan put it (pace Laplace). Another friend of mine used to get outraged by astrophysicists describing collisions between black holes detected by means of gravity waves. "It's absurd!" he'd say. "How can they know a thing like that?" And to explain it to him I'd have had to go into general relativity, why some energy is released (we think) when black holes merge, why that creates a ripple in the curvature of spacetime, and how we can use the observed profile to calculate the size of the black holes (from the frequency) and the distance (from the amplitude). To reject the astrophysicists' analysis would entail rejecting a lot of very well understood and useful physics, simply on the grounds of "but that doesn't feel right" to a non-physicist (my friend was an accountant, so smart and numerate but simply ignorant about all the science involved).
Maybe I'll do some science posts. I have a good idea about how to explain merging black holes without a lot of maths. Heaven knows, the world these days could do with a bit more training in the scientific way of thinking.
A salient response, Dave. One nit to pick: “Evidence can’t ever prove anything” means that nothing is provable, which sounds absurd. At best, we’re getting into metaphysics or philosophy. I can confidently claim that it has been proved, by overwhelming evidence, that the earth is spherical.
DeleteI agree, Gaetano, we know that the Earth is round, that species evolve by natural selection, that the observable universe expanded from a small but non-singularity volume 13.8 billion years ago, that vaccines work, and so on. Those are all models of reality that are overwhelmingly supported by the available evidence and thus have never been disproved. You and I can say that when a billion pieces of evidence all support a model and no credible evidence contradicts it that we count it as "proved" -- it's only philosophical nitpicking that I say "it has not been disproven", but it's the nitpicking that sets science apart from all religion, so I like to be a stickler about it!
ReplyDeleteActually, to sum all this up, I should say: *science* doesn't prove things. Science consists of maps of reality that have been shown to work so far, ie that haven't been disproved. We as individuals may say, "The body of evidence is sufficient; this is a fact." Eg, the Earth being more-or-less spherical. Outside of philosophy, we can take that as given, something that any rational educated person will accept. But I wanted to be clear that's not the same as "science proves it" because that's not what the scientific method is about.
DeleteIn the nit-picking spirit you have lauded, I must point out that both you and Gaetana are wrong: the other is not spherical, but is an oblate ellipsoid (or rather, the weight of evidence suggests that it is an oblate ellipsoid).
DeleteI always remember John Cleese's description of Life of Brian as being about 'closed systems of thought'. Some people consider science's inability to provide Truth as a weakness, but of course it is actually a strength. While scientific knowledge, by its very nature, is constantly adapting to new discoveries, closed systems of thought are rarely capable of responding to new information. Just look how long it took the Catholic Church to get over geocentricism (the 19th century! Heliocentricism had been proposed by astronomers since the 3rd century BC!).
Incidentally I would also like to pass along my best wishes to Oliver for a rapid recovery. May his COVID be short!
Not the 'other', but the 'Earth', dammit! I would have previewed, but when I tried, no preview appeared and my comment was wiped (luckily I suspected such calumny, and had Ctrl-Ced my comment in advance).
DeleteIf only, when dictating the many holy books He/She has published over the millennia, God had thought to mention some useful ideas like germ theory or three-crop rotation or, indeed, the scientific method. Instead He/She seems to be obsessed with what we eat, who we have sex with, and the specific fibres used in clothing. Oh, and doctrinal purity and the demonisation of those with different opinions. I really can't see His/Her behaviour as a good example to human beings.
DeleteBlogger's comments interface is even worse than the posts interface, which is saying something!
"Dead in hundreds at the back
ReplyDeleteFollow wooden in our track,
Arms raised stiffly to reprove
In false attitudes of love.
Starving through the leafless wood
Trolls run scolding for their food;
And the nightingale is dumb,
And the angel will not come.
Cold, impossible, ahead
Lifts the mountain’s lovely head
Whose white waterfall could bless
Travellers in their last distress."
Thanks for pointing us to this poem, Dave. I will share my notes with you !
Firstly, I much prefer the version of the final lines ("The Mountains of Instead") as quoted at the top of your blog. They are much more intriguing and imbued with magic !
Secondly, "trolls in the leafless wood" sounds suitably Dragon Warriors, doesn't it ?
But thirdly, and most importantly - how did Auden pronounce the word "love" to get it to rhyme with "reprove" ??
He would have been better ending that verse with the line
"Like cold statues in the Louvre" ;-)
Smart comments on physics *and* poetry -- do any other blogs give this value for money? (Or, looked at another way, ramble on so randomly..?)
DeleteI should leave it to somebody more informed than me on the subject (maybe Oliver Johnson, currently suffering from covid-19 but hopefully on the mend soon, whose degree was Eng Lit) but I will say that I prefer your Louvre line too, John, and I'll definitely try to work up something featuring trolls in leafless woods for the Jewelspider page.
Thanks Dave ! Rambling is a beautiful pastime, whether in woods or conversations, of course.
DeleteSorry to hear about Oliver, and I wish him a safe and speedy recovery. Please also pass my regards on to him, this Halloween season, for giving us the haunting "Prince of Darkness" scenario in DW - a chillingly effective combination of Rosemary Sutcliffe's "Eagle of the Ninth" with Lovecraft's "Mountains of Madness."
I look forward to the Winter woods !
Poor Oliver! Best wishes to him for a speedy recovery. His adventures are true classics! My giant Thulander Barbarian is currently at the lost city of Nem in an RPoL campaign...
ReplyDeleteHe's fully recovered now, you'll be pleased to hear, and no doubt "bursting with antibodies"!
DeleteGood to hear Oliver is well!
DeleteI've now read John's Popes and Phantoms, Dave. I think you mentioned previously that it was a good one. It is, another cracker.
ReplyDeleteI also got back around to reading your A Minotaur At The Savoy. It's as good as I remembered it. Sorry the review is five years late!
It was worth the wait, Andy, especially for the comparison to The Detectorists. Thanks!
DeleteNo worries, Dave. Glad to hear about Oliver. Now you can get back onto him about those unreleased books! :)
Delete