When Horror Metastasizes: A Review of Jean Ray’s Cruise of Shadows: Stories of Land and Sea
Where exactly do we situate the weird stories of Jean Ray? Poe’s short stories are brilliantly baroque in their density and for the myriad cogitations of the protagonists. M. R. James, born about 20 years before Jean Ray, but at times his contemporary, borders on the creeps with dead men’s tales and a whistling in the mist. Lovecraft ladles from a bucket of strange brew, as does Thomas Ligotti, the latter imbued with the scent of Thomas Bernhard. And on the other side of this coin is the work of Garielle Lutz with a flat-shock treatment like a sicko gut-punch (totally worth reading). Jean Ray aka, Raymundus Joannes de Kremer, or King Ray, or R. Bantam, or Sailor John, among others, take your pick from his pseudonyms, is somewhere in the middle. By any name, Ray was considered an important writer by people like Raymond Queneau. So where do we situate Ray’s horror stories? Somewhere in the middle of all this, with a voice that is equally odd and sharp, if less archaic and less contemporary than those mentioned. His stories are populated with characters one meets at tattered dockside liquor parlors, who enter dank rooms followed by blasts of cold air, and who, for a couple jiggers of whiskey, will tell you tenebrous tales of the extended kind. This is what you’ll find in Cruise of Shadows: Stories of Land and Sea, (first published in 1931). To be exact, there are 7 stories in all with wonderful translator notes and afterward in this 2019 edition. And here’s another tidbit to get your blood flowing, the notes say that Ray authored some 6,500 texts in his lifetime.
If you ask whether Jean Ray is worth reading, I’ll answer with a question in return: Do you prefer your brain in a vat? If so, I suspect this means you will enjoy getting all wobbly about reality and truth, consciousness and meaning. In other words, yes. Do you gravitate to the work on nature by Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling and his idea that within nature there is something nameless and frightful, something lying beneath nature’s peaceful surface that may provoke terror? Then absolutely.
But also head in with an awareness of the fare on the menu. Commotion is made over H. P. Lovecraft and how he less-than-describes the monsters, in order to highlight how the main characters, aka humans, generally cannot comprehend them and science is a poor method for understanding supernatural.
More so than Lovecraft, Ray’s foreboding monsters, things, situations are literal bodies without organs, hovering around like a negative life force, as in Žižek’s characterization of Lacan’s lamella. Zizek writes, “The lamella is an entity of pure surface, without the density of a substance, an infinitely plastic object that can incessantly change its form….an entity of pure semblance, a multiplicity of appearances that seem to enfold a central void — its status is purely phantasmatic.” (In How to Read Lacan, Chapter “Troubles with the Real: Lacan as a Viewer of Alien.”) Writers of horror and weird have long known that the minor writer motto “show don’t tell” holds no real meaning. An explicitly shown monster denies the space that may be filled by viewer fantasy. The 1959 movie The Tingler cuts off such space as soon as the Tingler appears. It comes off as a pasquinade of a lobster-rhinoceros beetle. In most great horror, the trick is not to show but to infer and hint as the means of forcing the reader or viewer to struggle with the reification of the abstract monster.
Graham Harman stirred this pot of this idea in his book Weird Realism: Lovecraft and Philosophy. He’s both right and wrong. In Lovecraft, the Cthulhu is described as “a monster of vaguely anthropoid outline, but with an octopus-like head whose face was a mass of feelers, a scaly, rubbery-looking body, prodigious claws on hind and fore feet, and long, narrow wings behind.” A crude drawing of Cthulhu by Lovecraft shows the side view of a sitting chunky scaled merman like form with flattened wings on its back, and a head from which emerges hair like tentacles. Lovecraft was not always leaving his monsters entirely to the reader’s imagination, contrary to current lore. I suspect some of this idea arises from Graham Harman commenting on Lovecraft’s “Nameless Approximations of Form” when he writes “No other writer gives us monsters and cities so difficult to describe that he can only hint at their anomalies,” or in speaking about monsters, each of which “escapes all such definition,” or “Whereas most fictional monsters have definite features and contours, Lovecraft’s most abstract creatures have now become something as vague as the cosmic background radiation left over from the Big Bang.” True enough, the Nyarlathotep, in the eponymous story, is “the crawling chaos,” which is in definitive language that won’t pin it down, even if Lovecraft imagined that “crawling chaos” was sufficiently vague. However, we also learn it was swarthy and slender “looked like a Pharoah,” and apparently spoke a lot to people of the sciences. The Nyarlathotep is embodied, and this gives it a description.
Ultimately too, Lovecraft’s humans are not necessarily monstrous but certainly less than human, caricatures of humans who attempt to grasp this ineffable world, a world beyond human measure, that they are thrown into. But by letting the human response slip away, the struggle is diminished, and the unknown becomes superficial. A conspicuous contrast would be any of Tolstoy’s greater characters. I suppose one might also construct a continuum of reality in which M. R. James accepts reality, Ligotti and Lovecraft work hard to disrupt reality with the insertion of the otherworldly, but Jean Ray destabilizes the entire premise of reality.
Thus, Ray’s gambit sacrifices tangible elaboration for hovering lamella, the undead-indestructible, the thing that to use Lacan’s wording is “extra-flat” and yet can come at night, “suppose it comes and envelopes your face while you are quietly asleep.” (Lacan, Four Fundamental Concepts, p. 197). Whoa, who knew Lacan was also a fledgling horror writer in this sense, I mean beyond the horror that first time Lacan readers experience when first engaging with his super-dense, elliptical work. This is the main difference I read between Lovecraft and Ray. Ray writes, in what can be a reflection on this process of working through movement from tangible to lamella, as he says in one story, “All at once the world of everyday explanations closed off, and only that of supernatural apprehensions remained for us.”
Ray’s stories engage being-toward-death, Heidegger’s Sein-zum-Tod, in which the unstated horror of this looming recognition streams through the whiskey sopped recollections. This is the weird throughout the tales, in which things are always less than defined and yet present like a magnetic force. Ray writes, “Listen to it… the absolute apotheosis of the tempest’s wicked roar. It has come in haste from afar, from the depths of the baleful seas. It has stolen away from some accursed shore where seals rot…” What sort of things does Ray discuss, “the end of the street,” “destiny,” “the sound of footsteps,” on nights when “nothing stirred in the air except formaldehyde vapors,” “whimpers of pain,” “the unfeeling abyss of the Unknown,” and a yearning “for things beyond the veil of the absolute.”
In The Mainz Psalter, Jellewyn is told by Friar Tuck of a thing:
“What?” I asked.
“Well, the thing that was watching us from the fissure,” he said foolishly.
“What was that?”
Friar Tuck gave me a furtive look.
“I don’t know, and it’s gone.”
Žižek speaks of adding to the Real a third type, “that of a mysterious je ne sais quoi, the unfathomable ‘something’ that makes an ordinary object sublime. Poe tried to do this and in particular with the story The Black Cat. Lovecraft wanted to do this, but his heavy-handedness of the phantasmagoric thumped the sublime right out of it. James headed in that direction and was pretty successful, to the point that his story The Casting of the Runes was turned into the movie The Curse of the Demon (1957) directed by Jacques Tourneur, and several others made into a BBC series (all worth watching.) Ray is equally successful and at times rawer than James.
These are nods to the Sein-zum-Tod that propels the weird and makes the stories human. Ray, as the knowing author, captain of this ship of tales, writes, “If a known danger strengthens the authority of the leader, the unknown brings him closer to the level of his men.” What emerges in Ray is that the horror characters feel is inside of them as much as it is outside of them. The forces of evil are not simply exterior, but that the internal fear invents the external, which is the ratified by the perception of the external. As Nick Land writes in Teleoplexy, (in Accelerate# The Accelerationist Reader. Urbanonic, 2014). “It is the prison, and not the prisoner, who speaks.” The horror, as its own inventor of the conditions of horror, holds a position as the “governor,” to use Land’s word. It reinforces the negative of the typical horror story by allowing that this internal and external are homologous. Here Ray’s work shows a bloodline back to Henry James’ Turn of the Screw and Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness.
Contrasted with the unnamable and unknowable are stunning, knife-like descriptions. “From a house next door a punctured gutter dispatched a minor cataract to spatter loudly against the pavement.” It’s an intriguing sentence not only for the clamor of consonants, but for the sounds that move from the uh to the ah, ending up on the sole long vowel in pavement. Or try these on for size: “I took two startled hops onto Bérégonnegasse; my hand mechanically broke off a branch of viburnum. It rests on my table.” Or, “One morning when Hellen brought up to my room the bizarre Früstück that she insisted on garnishing with Bismark herring and salted radishes, I caught her by the hem of her nightgown of Bulgarian embroidery.”
All the stories stand out, but two, are particular for their length and involvement. In one, “The Mainz Psalter,” a ship sails, having taken a wrong turn at the prime meridian, floats upon a sea that turns out to be a tropospheric plane of existence above another undersea world with inhabitants who occasionally rise to the surface. The sole survivor tells the story.
To situate Ray’s stories is for me to step outside of literature. They feel most for me like Sergei Prokofiev’s Sarcasms, premiered in Saint Petersburg, 1916, with Prokofiev at the piano. They are filled with energy and contrast, power and gentleness, and, as Vladimir Jankélévitch wrote in his book Music and the Ineffable, filled with “aggressive wrong notes.” Yes, this is beautiful storytelling, with power and contrast, with a wrongness to them that shows the work of a serious writer. But I can let Ray say this even more clearly: “All that, however, is but a parenthesis to this awful story, and here I must beg your pardon.” These are awful stories in the most superb sense, and each will cut a little nick out of your soul.