Tuesday, October 14, 2025

A Transforming Eye

It all started with Ann Radcliffe. Oh, it's true that her mystery fiction is itself derivative in this way and that. For example, a certain comic type — the servant who is easily frightened by strange happenings and excruciatingly long-winded in reporting urgent news — goes back at least as far as Plautus's play The Haunted House, which is in turn adapted from a mostly lost Greek play. The gothic genre got its start with Horace Walpole's The Castle of Otranto. However, it was Radcliffe who first put together the spooky but sprightly kind of escapist mystery story I love.

If you haven't read any of Radcliffe's novels and intend to read only one, let it be The Mysteries of Udolpho. You might want to do so before proceeding beyond this paragraph. In that case, see you again, perhaps, in a month or two. (It's well over 600 pages.)

A writer of popular fiction working in America today might set an eerie tale in, say, eighteenth-century England for atmosphere while sparing American readers much cultural dislocation. Ann Radcliffe, working in eighteenth-century England, set The Mysteries of Udolpho in sixteenth-century France and Italy while sparing English readers. It's not quite The Mikado, but broad-mindedness about verisimilitude is the price of a good time. In return, Radcliffe gives us a damsel cut out for distress; a young chevalier cut out for heroics; a villain with a castle with hidden passages leading to surprises; a similarly-equipped Mediterranean château, said to be haunted; mysterious music in the night; and a funny servant of the type described above.

Radcliffe gives us something hypnotically beautiful as well: a prelude that immerses us in the developing sensitivity of the protagonist, Emily St. Aubert, to things mysterious.

It was one of Emily's earliest pleasures to ramble among the scenes of nature; nor was it in the soft and glowing landscape that she most delighted; she loved more the wild wood-walks, that skirted the mountain; and still more the mountain's stupendous recesses, where the silence and grandeur of solitude impressed a sacred awe upon her heart, and lifted her thoughts to the GOD OF HEAVEN AND EARTH. In scenes like these she would often linger alone, wrapt in a melancholy charm, till the last gleam of day faded from the west; till the lonely sound of a sheep-bell, or the distant bark of a watch-dog, were all that broke on the stillness of the evening. Then, the gloom of the woods; the trembling of their leaves, at intervals, in the breeze; the bat, flitting on the twilight; the cottage lights, now seen and now lost — were circumstances that awakened her mind into effort, and led to enthusiasm and poetry.

Emily seems to have inherited this enthusiasm, along with a hint at mature understanding of it, from her gentle father.

"The evening gloom of woods was always delightful to me," said St. Aubert.... "I remember that in my youth this gloom used to call forth to my fancy a thousand fairy visions, and romantic images; and, I own, I am not yet wholly insensible of that high enthusiasm, which wakes the poet's dream: I can linger, with solemn steps, under the deep shades, send forward a transforming eye into the distant obscurity, and listen with thrilling delight to the mystic murmuring of the woods."

We soon follow Emily from her idyllic home in Gascony on a journey over the Pyrenees with her father. As she ascends, her mind completes its awakening to the sublime and, at the same time, to analytical thought.

The thinness of the atmosphere, through which every object came so distinctly to the eye, surprised and deluded her; who could scarcely believe that objects, which appeared so near, were, in reality, so distant. The deep silence of these solitudes was broken only at intervals by the screams of the vultures, seen cowering round some cliff below, or by the cry of the eagle sailing high in the air; except when the travellers listened to the hollow thunder that sometimes muttered at their feet. While, above, the deep blue of the heavens was unobscured by the lightest cloud, half way down the mountains, long billows of vapour were frequently seen rolling, now wholly excluding the country below, and now opening, and partially revealing its features. Emily delighted to observe the grandeur of these clouds as they changed in shape and tints, and to watch their various effect on the lower world, whose features, partly veiled, were continuously assuming new forms of sublimity.

The descent from that fantastic height into the Rousillon country brings us back to worldly concerns. Meanwhile, Emily and her father have met the chevalier Valancourt and shared several adventures in the mountains before parting ways.

For narrative purposes, that 65-page excursion is a false start. Emily goes right back where she started and is then uprooted by a series of domestic events (the foremost of which, the death of her father, has occurred from natural causes on the last leg of the journey). That uprooting could have come soon after the peaceful rhythms of her life were established. However, Radcliffe accomplishes two things by taking us through the Pyrenees first. The lesser of these is the dramatic introduction of Valancourt. The greater is the setting of the mental stage for sensational things to come. As Terry Castle notes in her introduction to the Oxford University Press edition of 1998, The Mysteries of Udolpho is a novel of the mind.

[T]o dwell overmuch on the clumsy device of the "explained supernatural" is to miss a more fundamental point: that Radcliffe represents the human mind itself as a kind of supernatural entity. If ghosts and spectres are resolutely excluded from the plane of action, they reappear — metaphorically at least — in the visionary fancies of the novel's exemplary characters. Indeed, to be a Radcliffean hero or heroine in one sense means just this: to be "haunted" by the spectral mental images of those one loves. ... To be haunted, according to the novel's romantic myth, is to display one's powers of sympathetic imagination.
...
In part if not wholly, Udolpho's exorbitant popularity among eighteenth- and nineteenth-century readers seems to have derived from this profoundly magical rendering of human consciousness. By giving themselves up to the nostalgic reveries of its characters, Radcliffe's readers also gave themselves up to a fantasy about mind itself: that by its godlike powers of spiritual transformation, the imagination itself might assuage longing, provide consolation, and reinfuse everyday life with mysterious and fantastic beauty.

Jane Austen, though she famously lampooned the gothic genre in Northanger Abbey, did not dismiss it. She had read The Mysteries of Udolpho and other gothic novels and evidently appreciated Radcliffe's superior examples of the genre. After all, Udolpho's Emily manages to do from the outset of her story what Northanger's Catherine fails to do until the end of hers: to rule the transforming eye with an analyzing mind. Austen's purpose was to show, affectionately, how runaway romanticism can lead to embarrassing consequences. At any rate, the delayed publication of Northanger Abbey in 1817 had the effect of reviving the market for gothic fiction.

After Emily St. Aubert's return to earth and mundane life, we face many pages in which she's distressed by cold-hearted relations and unwelcome suitors before fate brings her to Castle Udolpho and its labyrinthine mysteries. Readers who have stayed the course (or who have skipped ahead) are richly rewarded. No castle could be better endowed with suspicious inmates or unsuspected chambers and passages. Something of the sublimity we felt with Emily at the top of the world, we now feel at the entrance to an underworld.

Radcliffe presents two contending ways of proceeding into the underworld: the way of the natural mind, and that of the cultivated mind.

   "O, ma'amselle! I would not tell you for the world, nor all I have heard about this chamber, either; it would frighten you so."
       "If that is all, you have frightened me already, and may therefore tell me what you know, without hurting your conscience."
   "O Lord! they say the room is haunted, and has been so these many years."
       "It is by a ghost, then, who can draw bolts," said Emily, endeavouring to laugh away her apprehensions; "for I left the door open, last night, and found it fastened this morning."
   Annette turned pale, and said not a word.
       "Do you know whether any of the servants fastened this door in the morning, before I rose?"
   "No, ma'am, that I will be bound they did not; but I don't know: shall I go and ask, ma'amselle?" said Annette, moving hastily towards the corridor.
       "Stay, Annette, I have another question to ask; tell me what you have heard concerning this room, and whither that staircase leads."
   "I will go and ask it all directly, ma'am; besides, I am sure my lady wants me. I cannot stay now, indeed, ma'am."

She hurried from the room, without waiting Emily's reply, whose heart, lightened by the certainty, that Morano was not arrived, allowed her to smile at the superstitious terror, which had seized on Annette; for, though she sometimes felt its influence herself, she could smile at it, when apparent in other persons.

The word superstition or superstitious, which would not occur at all in a story told from Annette's point of view, occurs fifty times in this story told from Emily's — and Radcliffe's — point of view. Emily is constantly aware of the vital difference between mere receptiveness and objective observation. Though she feels the pull of superstitious terror, she bears in mind what she owes to her self-respect as a thinking person. Radcliffe never lets her down. All the mysteries Emily encounters at Udolpho and beyond turn out to have rational explanations. An uncanny thrill can be a glimpse of danger, but not of supernatural danger.

Emily's balance of sensitivity and self-awareness recommends her to us across the centuries. Despite all those elaborate sentences with commas inserted like carpet tacks, we recognize her as one of us. Her mental life has the essence of modernity. The Radcliffean model of gothic entertainment travels well and has traveled far.

With The Mysteries of Udolpho, Radcliffe set a standard of extravagance that must remain unsurpassed even by Hollywood: sojourns in two mysterious castles. Emily and Annette escape from Udolpho with Annette's resourceful boyfriend, Ludovico, and a gentleman separately imprisoned who has become devoted to Emily. That's happy enough, but it's no ending; the gentleman, after all, is not Valancourt. The book still has more than 200 pages to go. Very briefly:

The ship carrying Emily's party from Marseille across the Gulf of Lyon is nearly wrecked in a storm but succeeds in anchoring below the ancient Château-le-Blanc, just re-inhabited by members of the noble family that owns it. These kind people, who take in the weary travelers, are themselves strangers to the castle and its lore, part of which is that its north wing is infested with ghosts. Annette, fresh from her sensational adventures at Udolpho, becomes a celebrity among the frightened servants. Emily has her rationality put to the test once more.

Emily turned to look within the dusky curtains, as if she could have seen the countenance of which Dorothée spoke. The edge of the white pillow only appeared above the blackness of the pall, but, as her eyes wandered over the pall itself, she fancied she saw it move. Without speaking, she caught Dorothée's arm, who, surprised by the action, and by the look of terror that accompanied it, turned her eyes from Emily to the bed, where, in the next moment she, too, saw the pall slowly lifted, and fall again.

Emily attempted to go, but Dorothée stood fixed and gazing upon the bed; and, at length, said — "It is only the wind, that waves it, ma'amselle; we have left all the doors open: see how the air waves the lamp, too. — It is only the wind."

She had scarcely uttered these words, when the pall was more violently agitated than before; but Emily, somewhat ashamed of her terrors, stepped back to the bed, willing to be convinced that the wind only had occasioned her alarm; when, as she gazed within the curtains, the pall moved again, and, in the next moment, the apparition of a human countenance rose above it.

Screaming with terror, they both fled, and got out of the chamber as fast as their trembling limbs would bear them, leaving open the doors of all the rooms, through which they passed. When they reached the staircase, Dorothée threw open a chamber door, where some of the female servants slept, and sunk breathless on the bed; while Emily, deprived of all presence of mind, made only a feeble attempt to conceal the occasion of her terror from the astonished servants; and, though Dorothée, when she could speak, endeavoured to laugh at her own fright, and was joined by Emily, no remonstrances could prevail with the servants, who had quickly taken the alarm, to pass even the remainder of the night in a room so near to these terrific chambers.

Stout-hearted Ludovico voluntarily stands watch in those terrific chambers, only to vanish during the night. And so on and so forth. Ann Radcliffe does not stint.

If you haven't read The Mysteries of Udolpho yet, would you care to guess what or who it is that haunts the Château-le-Blanc? Smugglers using it as a storehouse for their contraband and playing ghost to scare off the inquisitive? Ah, then you've seen that device in some movie, TV show, or comic book. No, there's an encounter with smugglers later on, but the "ghosts" in the château are pirates guarding their hidden treasure. Not quite the same thing.

Will you also hazard a guess as to whether such a tale of horror and suspense can have a happy ending — even for Ludovico? Well, well. Like me, you're steeped in the Radcliffean tradition. Nothing can surprise us anymore. Still, Radcliffe's bewitching prose alone makes this a book worth taking to bed for the approach to Halloween.

The midnight chant of the monks soon after dropped into silence; but Emily remained at the casement, watching the setting moon, and the valley sinking into deep shade, and willing to prolong her present state of mind. At length she retired to her mattress, and sunk into tranquil slumber.

Friday, October 3, 2025

Flattery Will Get You

Donald Trump is a pusher: one who traffics in make-believe to support his own dependence. In this, he's genuine — a true slave to moonshine. Since his first term, his rare cabinet meetings have been ceremonies of ingratiation in which the participants take turns giving thanks for the blessing of so heroic a leader, not to say savior. This ritual, like the other gaudy trappings of Trump's egosphere, has gained in extravagance with his return to office.

All of us must dislike receiving flattery insofar as we recognize it for what it is. After all, flattery implies a low estimation of the recipient's intelligence. It's true that an intelligent tyrant might compel flattery in order to demonstrate the helplessness of those who must perform it, but that clearly is not the root of the matter with Donald Trump. The levels of his intelligence and his hunger for praise are too well established to leave any doubt about it. Flattery is his precious make-believe praise. He can sit and listen to it without distaste, and he can show that scene to the world without feeling that he's making a fool of himself. In the eyes of his most faithful supporters, he may be right; or at least in their mouths. However, it also may be that he's getting carried away — away, over the brink of the abyss — in this and his other aberrations combined.

Flattery holds danger for the one who swallows it. It contains no nutrients, only a false stimulant and an addictive flavor. Donald Trump is by no means the only addict.

A very long time ago, when I was just old enough to find myself moderating a panel discussion on a small radio station, I in fact did so. The panelists were university people, intellectuals of some local stature (maybe more, for it was not a university to be sneezed at). I can't recall the subject of discussion. I remember only that it was some politicized question on which they all agreed, all picked up each other's cues and took turns developing a common theme. It drove me crazy. Eventually I heard my own voice talking back, offending sweet reason with impertinent skepticism verging on rudeness. I felt an irrepressible urge to open things up, even though the result would be a frigid void. So it was. When the broadcast ended, I witnessed an actual case of people leaving in what writers call a huff. Nevertheless, the incident passed without repercussions, and one slightly senior young man who had listened in vouchsafed me a verbal pat on the back tinged with awe. That was it. Such was the size of our audience.

The things said during that panel discussion didn't strike me as patently wrong. The offense was not wrongness, but complacency. The panelists, having recognized each other as kindred spirits, formed a little eddy whose rotating current of confirmation lifted all boats; or, rather, gave them all the appearance of going somewhere. This was generations ago, as the crow flies. It was an early vision of today's enclosed left-liberal habitat. Yet to come was the reactive, mocking revival of the already-mocked Stalinist phrase politically correct. Closer at hand was the dissidence of New Deal liberals repelled by the emerging leftist orthodoxy, who would go on to be scorned as neoconservatives by their old peers. Between then and now, the running improvisation of an orthodox path through history has engendered individual fear of straying, but also collective guidance by means of call-and-response between opinion leaders and followers combined with mutual confirmation within the vanguard. The most striking example of this is the way feminism was wrenched out of its own path.

Until the mid-2010s, feminism demanded respect for womanhood, for a life grounded in certain biological factors and formative experiences. This was its essence. For a while, it strategically minimized differences between the sexes to an extreme. It sometimes seemed to be the domain of confirmed bachelorettes. But it always presupposed a fully-formed female identity. Then the political terrain underwent an upheaval. The US Supreme Court affirmed the right to same-sex marriage, and the generously funded organizations that had campaigned for that outcome found themselves without a cause. They could thank their donors and fold their tents, or they could take up a new cause and continue in operation. They took up the cause of advocacy for people who had undergone a medical change of sex. (The idea of simply declaring a change had not dawned yet.) This new thing took the social-justice Left by storm. Specifically, "trans women" were to be recognized as women in every particular. After a brief period of confusion, women in the feminist vanguard saw how the land lay and capitulated as though they wouldn't have had it any other way. Individual feminists who disagreed were ostracized, and before long they became targets of positive abuse wherever the new sex-and-gender coalition could exert its influence. All unconforming opinion would thenceforth be slurred as transphobia, and everything on the trans-activist agenda would be dubbed trans rights. In the subsequent whirl of improvisation and confirmation among leading-edge progressives, gender became fluid. Sex ceased to be binary. And so, in political circles where heightened recognition of women had recently been a core tenet, the very word woman became problematic. Female identity was then dissected into a Frankensteinian vocabulary of body parts and functions that might or might not, at the end of the day, signify a woman. Progressives had stormed the patriarchal tower where Woman was held captive — and dragged her out by the hair.

Within the progressive biosphere, flattery is sustenance. The novel claims of some enterprising organism will be flattered as the essence of progress and made to flourish for a time, while other organisms donate their lifeblood to the cause. Charismatic young New York socialists will be flattered as harbingers of an America to come and celebrated as though they had already cast a spell over the future. Yes, that again. Within some biospheres, there is no evolution.

It can seem that the future belongs to progressives by definition. But take away the assumed name progressive, and the illusion of historical advantage disappears. The compass spins. There is, after all, no determinate future in which "progressives" as we know them are awaited by a brass band. What there is, is a present in which all political actors either face reality or court disaster. The case of Trumpworld is paramount. By comprehensively denying reality, it courts comprehensive disaster: the ruin of us all. The case of Leftworld is subordinate. It courts disaster for itself and, by extension, for the Democratic Party. That brings us back to Trumpworld.