 |
 |
Justin, In re poetry, my area of focused research for many years specifically Renaissance Metaphysical Poetry and its relation to Modernist Poetry, there is much to be reflected upon concerning history, its documentation, etc.. Pound himself stated that poetry is news that stays news. Looking at the poem as an artifact one can see his point: every time a poem is picked up and read for the first time it is a living artifact that is in essence animated by the act of reading. Then when we venture into the realm of poets such as William Blake, entire made-up cosmologies arise, burgeon, and stimulate. I am reminded of Robert Duncan's statement in his poetics that science is a fiction that is merely given credence for a given period of time before being superseded by a more current method or theory. Taking that tack much the same could be said for historical studies. I too enjoy fake histories, especially the ones we give credence too until we become the wiser. Bob ________________________________ From: Justin McKeown <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Thu, November 10, 2011 2:12:55 AM Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] SV: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] SV: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Mark Benyon 'historian' You know, people who have invisible friends should be very careful when debating the line between fact and fiction. As a friend of mine once remarked: 'point to something outside your imagination'. Poetry is banality intensified. And poetry - in the broadest sesnse - is not necessarily the pursuit of truth and therefore shouldn't be judged by the same criteria. Some people consider poetry to exist in relations between events and people and not just words one a page. This kind of poetry, especially those works that refuse to identify themselves as works of art are frequently - to me at least - the most beautiful. I love fake histories and I think the criteria for how we assess them is more akin to the criteria we may apply to an artwork than anything else. Very interesting debate to read. Thanks, Justin Sent from my iPhone On 9 Nov 2011, at 22:54, David Mattichak <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >Whether Dan Brown believes his work or not becomes irrelevant long before his >books ever hit the shelves. Random House (his publishing overlords) have listed >his books as fiction, they are reviewed in the mainstream media as novels, so >people that want to believe them as facts are choosing to read them through some >sort of rose colored glasses. >I don't imagine that academic publishers require their authors to sex up their >work to create a broader appeal but I would be willing to bet that Random House >do. I have published (and tried to publish) non-fiction books on magick and the >publishers that I dealt with wanted me to "Potterize" them to make them more >broadly appealing (I refused and so I am still a poor writer). My point is that >once the writer has finished a book it goes to the mainstream publication >machine and often comes out as something quite different. I am not saying that >Dan Brown started with anything valid but he certainly would have bent to the >will of his publishing overlords and written something that they could sell >millions of copies of. The whole phenomenon is driven by profits and judging >these kind of popular books by the same sorts of standards as an academic view >of history misses the point- I think. >Publishers, especially publishers of popular fiction, are only accountable to >their shareholders so they will always want to sex it up for success in the >marketplace. I would doubt whether Mr Brown's books were even written completely >by himself as his publishers would certainly have put them through the editing >mill that takes an artist's work and bends it into commercial shape that can be >marketed mercilessly to make money. That system is hardly going to produce a >volume of serious history. If people want to believe that it can, or will, then >they are free to do so. In the end fiction is just fiction regardless of who >believes it. >I apologize if you feel that I have bullied you- it was never my intention. > > >David > > > ________________________________ Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 14:07:27 +0100 >From: [log in to unmask] >Subject: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] SV: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] SV: >[ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Mark Benyon 'historian' >To: [log in to unmask] > > >Well, this kind of postmodern infinite regress takes us nowhere, I think. >Reminds me of high school bullies who covered their snipe remarks behind “irony” >and claims that the offended couldn’t take a joke. If that is so, the line >between fact and fiction is not blurred, it is gone. And that is simply not >true, Latour notwithstanding. > >In other words: Marketing ploy is a bad argument when discussing fact and >fiction. Otherwise, we can always use “perhaps this was intended” as another >escape. Genres exist for a reason; they are frequently abused, twisted, blended, >mixed, but that confirms their basic utility. Von Däniken wrote speculative >history, but most of it was fact for him. Same with Celestine Prophecy. That >they sell is beside the point. We can criticize them because they believe it to >be historically true. SW and LOTR is fiction, and fans want it to be true and so >enact it. But no dragons and deathstars appear. In any case we cannot criticize >Tolkien or Lucas on the level of academic veracity. We might do so for the fan >who offers a working lightsaber though. > >Best, > >Jesper. > >Fra:Society for The Academic Study of Magic >[mailto:[log in to unmask]] Påvegne av David Mattichak >Sendt: 9. november 2011 13:36 >Til: [log in to unmask] >Emne: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] SV: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Mark Benyon >'historian' > >It may also be a marketing ploy for his readers to think that Dan Brown believes >his faked history too- great identification gimmick. People believed Eric Von >Daniken too but now we really know where the statues on Easter Island came from. >Sold a lot of books though. The Celestine Prophecy sold a ton of books too- is >it fake, is it real? From my reading the authors believed what they wrote. Is >that a reason to criticize them as frauds? Caesar said that conquerors have the >right to tell history in any way that they choose so how can I be sure that any >history is true? People want the Lord of the Rings to be true- have they been >milked for wanting it to be true, or Star Wars? > >I am sure that not everyone that read Dan Brown or Eco believed their take on >history. Fiction relies on people that want to believe on some level. Not that I >am defending Dan Brown, not really my kind of books, but it is an enduring >debate. > ________________________________ >Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 11:37:13 +0100 >From: [log in to unmask] >Subject: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] SV: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Mark Benyon >'historian' >To: [log in to unmask] >David, > >Arguing that Brown is artistically «right» because millions buy his books or >because his «fact-fiction» reversal is just a marketing ploy seems to me to >ignore two things: First of all that he himself seems to believe in his >pseudohistorical drivel, and second that neither sales nor marketing (that is, >your artistical argument) justifies an industry bent on milking his audience >because they want it to be true. People might be gullible, but that doesn’t mean >we should prey on that, fiction or not. > >So no, we’re not criticizing Brown for talent (which is overrated IMHO) or >marketing ability (where he is very good), but for his deliberate fictionalizing >of pseudohistorical fact and participation in the popular occult industry. He is >not «just» writing fiction. Rowlings is just writing fiction. What her fans do >is another matter. > >Best, > >Jesper. > >Fra:Society for The Academic Study of Magic >[mailto:[log in to unmask]] Påvegne av David Mattichak >Sendt: 9. november 2011 00:51 >Til: [log in to unmask] >Emne: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Mark Benyon 'historian' > >It occurs to me that much of the pagan/Wiccan world still believes a similar >style of believable fiction re Margaret Murray's interpretation of history that >has since been shown to be off track. Even though this is so there are still >many witches that hold to that particular fiction as believable. People are >gullible, nothing will ever change that. The genius of great fiction writers >isn't in their accuracy or their perfect use of English Grammar, but their >ability to tell a story that holds the reader to the end. Criticizing them for >their talent and their ability to market their work is almost a >misinterpretation of what they are all about. > ________________________________ >Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 09:35:09 +1100 >From: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Mark Benyon 'historian' >To: [log in to unmask] >These psuedohistorians are deliberately vague about the difference between >history and fiction – and the readers do believe that it is history much of the >time. > > >From:Society for The Academic Study of Magic >[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Mattichak >Sent: Wednesday, 9 November 2011 9:23 AM >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Mark Benyon 'historian' > >The perceptions of the reader aren't the business of the author. If the reader >wants to believe that the fiction is genuine history then that is their >business. Authors of fiction are telling a story not writing a serious history. >It really doesn't matter how silly a novel is the object of writing it was to >sell books. It is like saying that I have read all of the Harry Potter books so >now I know all about magick. > >> Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 09:14:53 +1100 >> From: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Mark Benyon 'historian' >> To: [log in to unmask] >> >> Hi Vivianne, >> >> It might be one of the silliest, but I've heard several people speak of it as >>though it is history as in (in an excited voice) "Yes, and once I read 'Holy >>Blood and Holy Grail' I understood blah, blah, blah.." - As if it is a history >>book. >> >> ~Caroline. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic >>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Vivianne Crowley >> Sent: Wednesday, 9 November 2011 6:27 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Mark Benyon 'historian' >> >> Many years ago there was an article UK left-leaning broadsheet 'The Guardian' >>which described Michael Baigentetal's 'Holy Blood and Holy Grail' as 'one of the >>silliest books of the 20th century'. >> >> >> It now has a rival: >> >>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2059084/Six-deaths-attributed-Curse-Tutankhamun-murders-committed-notorious-satanist-book-claims.html >>l