Baker Street Irregulars discussion
This topic is about
A Case of Witchcraft
Pastiches, Homages & Parodies
>
AUTHOR READ: A Case of Witchcraft with Joe Revill
date
newest »
newest »
Thank you, Joanna! I'm very pleased that you enjoyed my novel. I hope that you won't think me pedantic for saying that, as I understand the term, "A Case of Witchcraft" is actually not a *pastiche*, since it doesn't attempt to imitate the style and content of the canon. Holmes speaks like Holmes, of course, but the narrative method is different, and the story contains many things which Dr. Watson would have thought unsuitable for publication. The basic assumption of my novel is that Holmes was a real man, about whom Watson didn't tell us the whole truth. The novel reveals some of the things that Watson left out: concerning Holmes's philosophical and political views, for example, and the riddle of his sexuality. Some people have liked this, and others have not. It may be that my Holmes seems too liberal for readers of a conservative bent, although I believe that his attitudes are quite credible for an intellectual of the 1890's.
As to your questions, almost all of the many books that are mentioned in the novel are real, and I suppose that it probably adds a little something to one's enjoyment if one has read them. Knowing "Aradia", "The Soul of Man Under Socialism", or "The Time Machine", for example, must give extra interest to the scenes in which the characters discuss those books. I must confess I hope that a few of my readers might be interested enough to track down such unfairly neglected works of nineteenth-century scholarship as Karl Pearson's lecture, "Woman as Witch" (recommended to Holmes by Miss Reid), or Thomas Wright's book, "The Worship of the Generative Powers" (mentioned in passing by Lizzie). On the other hand, I certainly don't think that one needs to have read any of these books in order to understand or to enjoy the novel.
With regard to Crowley, I would heartily recommend his autobiography, "The Confessions of Aleister Crowley", which is beautifully written, thought-provoking, and often very funny. It was the main source for my imaginative re-creation of the young magician.
Hello Joe!Haha, I do not think you are being too pedantic. I understand Sherlock Holmes fandom needing more specific definitions because of the amount of transformative work that it deals with, haha. And I am all for more precise definitions!
I had come to understand that pastiche was, as you say, an imitation of the style and content of another author (there is another definition of pastiche which defines it as a hodgepodge of works, which just confuses things even more). I have focused on content, and not so much on style. So when I say pastiche I mean a "Sherlock Holmes" pastiche not an "Arthur Conan Doyle" pastiche, which I think is more generally understood. Which... now that I think about it... maybe has a lot more in common with that second, hodgepodge definition of pastiche that I had originally realized. A hodgepodge of "Sherlock Holmes"! A microcosm of intertextuality.
It is very interesting to focus on the imitation of style as being more important. I was reading what wikipedia said about pastiche, and this caught my eye: "Many genre writings, particularly in fantasy, are essentially pastiches." Which I was very happy to read, because sometimes I see some people who write genre fiction bad mouthing fan fiction, saying things like, "Why can't you think of something yourself instead of taking another person's characters and world?" and I'm like, "What? can't you see how you've just changed people and place names? Your book is like, the most cliched thing ever." Now I can say that their stories are works of appropriation, too, ha.
I am actually now thinking of calling this folder "Transformative Works" because I have been unhappy with "Pastiche and Parody" but pastiche just seemed so much more Sherlock Holmesy. "Transformative Works" would include unpublished fan fiction, which I love, more so than "Pastiche and Parody".
What would you call all the different methods of appropriation? For example, what would you call Sherlock, the BBC series? Is it different from what you would call the Granada series, or the current Sherlock Holmes movies?
Gosh, Joanna, I haven't given much thought to a new system of nomenclature! We have plenty of good words, like "re-imagining", "dramatization", "burlesque", and so on, which I suppose could be applied to various Holmes-related works without causing too much controversy. My problem is just with "pastiche", which implies the more or less playful imitation of another artist's style. It's like singing in the style of Elvis or Frank Sinatra: the thing may be well done, but by definition it's just a kind of trick, and not a genuine work of art.Some authors are remarkably good at imitating the style of the canon. Personally I have no interest in doing that. I wanted to write a novel in which Holmes was the main character, and I wanted to do justice to him (if that makes any sense). I wanted to walk around the familiar figure, and see aspects of him that were invisible to Watson. So I made Holmes, rather than Watson, the viewpoint character, and I deliberately chose a narrative method very different from that of the canon.
The result of that has been that several reviewers have been outraged that my novel doesn't read like something by Conan Doyle. "The sound and
texture of the canon were... not there," as one of them put it, finishing his review with the words: "Clearly, this was no pastiche." That's why I put in the new preface (http://acaseofwitchcraft.wordpress.co...), warning readers what to expect. As the song says, one is certainly in for a disappointment when "trying to drink whiskey out of a bottle of wine!"
If my book must have a label, I would prefer to call it a work of "Holmesian fiction". "Holmesian" (preferably, as Vincent Starrett pronounced it, with the stress on the "me") by analogy with "Arthurian". After all, if someone writes a work of Arthurian fiction, nobody expects him to write in the style of Malory!
Of course, if one is writing about Holmes, he has to sound like the character whom we know and love, but I think that I managed that, don't you?
Anyway, the novel isn't just about Holmes, and I wonder if we might say something about the rest of it: all the stuff about witchcraft, and history, and the forbidden folk-story, for example. Since you say that you were "entertained the whole way through," I suppose that you found that stuff interesting, too?
I found that stuff totally interesting! Is the folk tale in the story real? Haha, I mean, is it told as a folk tradition in Scotland, ect? I don't know much about fairy tales, and I hadn't come across it before. I would very much like to hear what you will say about witchcraft and history. Let's start with history. There was one scene in the novel about Holmes eating for breakfast baked beans, an exotic American export. That tickled me so much I had to quickly google the history of baked beans. Of course! How could I never put together Heinz Baked Beans with Heinz, the American company most famous here for ketchup. Ha!
Are there any other historical easter eggs?
Oh, thanks again, Joanna -- you say the nicest things!:-)The folk tale is real... up to a point. That is, the Icelandic versions that are mentioned in the book actually exist (as you will see if you google 'Mjadveig'). There is also a version from the Faroe Islands, called 'Krákudóttir', i.e. 'The Crow's Daughter', which I haven't seen. Like Mr. Tollemache, I thought that the Icelandic versions sounded as if they might have been distorted accounts of something that had really happened, and I attempted to reconstruct what the reality behind the legends might have been. In fact my (unpublished) previous novel was just that story, told at greater length. But it actually works better in 'A Case of Witchcraft,' with Holmes's comments on it, than it did on its own.
As to baked beans, isn't the Internet wonderful? It's so easy to find things out! But anyone looking at the Wikipedia article on 'Heinz Baked Beans' might think that I'd made a mistake, since it says that they were launched here in 1901, two years after the date of my story; whereas in fact (as the article on 'Baked Beans') says, the very posh Fortnum and Mason department store in London was selling them from 1886, following a visit from Mr. Heinz, whose company had an office in London from 1896. It is curious how much more popular his baked beans are over here than in his own country. Probably the prestige of Fortnum and Mason's had something to do with it.
I don't know about 'Easter eggs', but I do think that quite a few of the historical references are worth following up. Indeed, I considered imitating the practice of Sir Walter Scott, and putting notes at the back to explain such things as attitudes to cannabis in Victorian Britain, what the Somerville Club was, what a Gresham Professor did, what happened in the Palladian scandal, what was meant by a 'breeches part,' and so on; but in the end I decided that if people were interested they would probably google them.
There are a couple of other things that don't seem to have been mentioned by any reviewers, but which I consider quite interesting.First, the book's theory about witchcraft: that it was the survival of a very ancient religion, having much in common with Shakta Tantra, which worshipped the Goddess of Nature with wild, orgiastic rites. That is the view to which nineteenth-century scholarship was tending, and I consider it to be correct – although few among either modern academics or modern wiccans would endorse it. To the academics, Margaret Murray made the witchcraft-as-religion theory seem rather ridiculous in her unscholarly books; and modern wiccans are, for the most part, both very much attached to her unhistorical ‘hornéd god’, and anxious to play down the scandalous, sexual elements of ancient witchcraft. I had been hoping for some feedback from pagan readers; but, due to the way that the book was marketed, so far it has been read only by Sherlock Holmes fans – who, on the whole, don't seem to have much interest in the question of whether its view of witchcraft is correct or not.
And the other thing that I think worth mentioning is the very positive view taken by Holmes (and various other characters) of civilization. When I was growing up, in the 60’s, ‘civilization’ was kind of a dirty word: the fashionable ideal was to throw off its restraints and become ‘noble savages’ á la Rousseau. In order to write a novel from the point of view of Sherlock Holmes, I had to enter into a Victorian mindset in which civilization was by definition a very good thing, so that the chief justification for education (and, indeed, imperialism) was that of civilizing people, making them worthy participants in this great human project. I have to say now, after having inhabited that world-view for the months that it took to write the book, that I think the Victorians had a point.
Joe wrote: "There are a couple of other things that don't seem to have been mentioned by any reviewers, but which I consider quite interesting.First, the book's theory about witchcraft: that it was the survi..."
I am very interested what pagans will think about it; unfortunately I don't know any pagans. I was thinking of discussing it with one of my friends and my mother, but their interest in witchcraft seems more based on a well, SoCal hippie new age aesthetic which... might be actually kinda interesting. They are very opinionated!
Civilization is still kind of a dirty word, I think. Though becoming "noble savages" is no longer cool, I don't see many people taking up the white man's burden. Well, maybe not so overtly. Maybe it gets expressed in people wanting to decide how other countries/cultures treat women? Which I have to admit I desire to do, whether or not I have a right to.
By the way, is there a way to read Karl Pearson's lecture, "Woman as Witch"? I googled it and found your blog and a link to a talk on Victorian sex magic, but not the lecture itself.
I found "Woman as Witch" on line a couple of years ago, Joanna, but I'm blowed if I can find it now. It was a mechanically-scanned version, with various transcription-errors that made it hard to read. I have just posted a re-edited (and hopefully error-free) version on my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/notes/joe-revill/wom... . I don't much like the Facebook font (preferring something with serifs) but at least the lecture is now on line in an easily-legible form. I put a link to it from my blog, too.
Joe wrote: "I found "Woman as Witch" on line a couple of years ago, Joanna, but I'm blowed if I can find it now. It was a mechanically-scanned version, with various transcription-errors that made it hard to re..."Thank you so much!
By the way, "the white man's burden" is not a phase that I like; although Kipling certainly had his merits as a writer, many of his works are tainted by racism, to a degree that often makes them painful to read. The idea of civilization, as Holmes expounds it in my book (in his conversation with Mr. Marwick, for example, or at Mr. Brown's dinner-table) is rather more interesting than that: it's of a great human project in which people from a wide variety of backgrounds can take part. The London of his day was a microcosm of that. Despite one unfortunate conversation with Steve Dixie, in a story that I would prefer to believe apocryphal, I don't believe that Holmes was a racist. "The Yellow Face" gives us a better idea of his characteristic magnanimity, I think.
Sorry I have been missing! My family is over for the summer. I'll be reading Woman as Witch and I'll love to chat with you about it when I'm less busy doing family things.
No problema, Joanna! I'm sorry that this discussion doesn't seem to have aroused much interest among the Irregulars, but it's been nice talking to you. By the way, I got another good review -- did you see? (http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...)Have a good time with your family, and maybe we'll talk more after that!
Joe and I both grew up in the 60's. There was a mystic fascination about witchcraft and I find some of that in the book. I just finished and have posted my rewiew here and at Amazon. The amount of work that Joe put into the historical atmosphere is amazing and outstanding. I truly learned a lot. There is a great depth in this book that deserves independent study.
Holmes is a little bit different, but not too much. I agree with Joe that Watson would have glossed over some things. If you were around, Mickey Mantle was not chastized for his binge drinking nor JFK for his sexual adventures. Something like that is how I see Joe thinking of Watson.
If you like Holmes, buy the book. For me, the mystery was interstsing but not overwhleming. Some of the book dragged for me, but overall I gave it 4 out 5 rating, and I recommend any Holmes fan at least check it out.
I would like to see Joe tackle another novel with Crowley as the main story. Perhaps he could tackle his joining of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. Not sure how it would sell, but tie in Masonic or Templars, you might have a winner.
Thank you very much for this thoughtful response to my work, David! And for the Amazon review, too!I agree with what you say about the 60's, and the influence of that time on my story. Nemani and Turabel bring about a kind of "Summer of Love" in the Dark Ages, while some of the Victorian characters (e.g. Crowley and Miss Reid) may be considered as proto-hippies!
But of course there really were people like that in the past: not all Victorians, for example, were straight-laced and prudish. In the novel I did my very best to get the history right, and to give the reader a sense of really being in the year 1899. It makes me happy that you appreciated that.
I agree with you too that Watson, as a man of his time, would not have told the whole truth about Holmes (or about himself) in his stories. People kept their private lives private in those days. Your examples, from a slightly more recent time, make the point well.
You know, I was thinking of writing a kind of sequel with Crowley as the protagonist. He is said to have been employed by British intelligence services as a secret agent, which seems like a promising idea for a story; but in the end I gave it up. There were a number of problems with the idea, the most important of which was that Crowley's life has been so well documented that there's not much blank space into which fictional adventures could be inserted. I am currently at work on a story in which a (fictional) British agent has some exciting adventures in pre-revolutionary Russia. Rasputin and Lenin will figure prominently.
I was wondering why, when you'd said such positive things, you'd given the book four rather than five stars; and now I see that it's because you found that "Some of the book dragged." Sorry about that, David! Was it the dinner-party, perhaps? That seems to have attracted the most criticism; and I must admit that there are an awful lot of courses served at Mr. Brown's table! But then people did have an awful lot of courses at a formal dinner in those days, and I thought that it would be kind of interesting just for once to go through the whole dining experience with the conversation and everything. Anyway, I am interested in listening to my readers so that I can produce something even better for them next time.
The dinner party was ok, I think it was the long dialogue with Holmes and Reid in chapter 13. I would have given it a 4.5 if possible.
Well, that was a long conversation, for sure; but the bulk of it was the story of the Crow's Daughter, which a wise man has recently called "a tale worth hearing"; and the rest of it was all significant stuff about witchcraft and the two characters, so I don't see how it could have been any shorter. Still, something to bear in mind for next time: break up long conversations somehow! Thank you, David. And thanks for the notional extra half-point, too. :-)
I am very glad because A Case of Witchcraft is one of the best pastiches I have read, and it is right now my favorite. It is incredibly erudite and clever, but never loses focus on characterization and plot. I don't think I have read many books that can balance that, honestly. I was entertained the whole way through.
Being that I am a voracious reader (and curious about the not often read about occult world the characters inhabit) the first question I want to ask is, what books do you recommend reading that would add to the understanding of your book? Were there any good references that you used? Is there something that Crowley (the real person) wrote that would help illuminate Crowley (the character in the book)?