THE DEEP ONES: "Oh, Whistle, and I'll Come to You, My Lad" by M.R. James

"O, Whistle, and I'll Come to You, My Lad" by M.R. James

Discussion begins April 4

First published in Ghost Stories of an Antiquary (1904)



ONLINE VERSIONS
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/%27Oh,_Whistle,_and_I%27ll_Come_to_You_My_Lad%27
http://www.fadl12200.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/mrjframes.html
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8486
(3rd link is to Ghost Stories of an Antiquary, which includes "'Oh, Whistle'" and 14 other James tales)

PRINT VERSIONS

The Ghost Stories of M.R. James
Casting the Runes and Other Ghost Stories
The 13 Best Horror Stories of All Time
The Mammoth Book of Modern Ghost Stories

MISCELLANY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Stories_of_an_Antiquary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._R._James#First_book_publications
http://www.thin-ghost.org/items/browse?collection=7&sort_field=Dublin%20Core...
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~pardos/FAQ.html

I'll be reading this out of The Oxford Book of Ghost Stories.

Michael Chabon's introduction to the 2002 Oxford World's Classics edition of Casting the Runes and Other Ghost Stories (where I'm reading this one) adverts much to "Oh, Whistle," which Chabon describes in his second sentence as "one of the finest short stories ever written."

Hi #2, would you , please, provide an ISBN for that book.
There are several "Oxford" Ghost anthologies. Your's seems to be only owned by you :-)

>4 guido47:

Gladly. The ISBN is 978-0-19-955630-4.

Looking at the book again, I see that the title on the front cover and the spine is The Oxford Book of Ghost Stories. However, the title on the back cover, the title page, and the copyright page is given as The Oxford Book of English Ghost Stories. Confusing!

>3 paradoxosalpha:

Chabon is a writer that I admire enormously; his novel The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay should be required reading for every comic book geek on the globe, IMHO. Incidentally, I see that a revised version of the intro you mentioned was included in his collection Maps and Legends.

> 5 in his collection Maps and Legends.

The intro has a sort of abrupt ending; I imagine that the revision is better formed.

'I suppose you will be getting away pretty soon, now Full term is over, Professor,' said a person not in the story to the Professor of Ontography, soon after they had sat down next to each other at a feast in the hospitable hall of St James's College.

James seems to enjoy pointing out incidental characters every now and then, as a kind of amusing wink to the reader. It never gets in the way of the horror, though.

I find the author's stories to remain compellingly readable and chilling. Reading "Oh Whistle", I'm struck by how strong an influence M.R. James was on Fritz Leiber, probably more so than Lovecraft was. The ending of this tale in particular seems to be directly mirrored/answered by Leiber in Our Lady of Darkness when the "writer's mistress" presents herself.

Yeah, one of the effects of James referring to whatshisname every now and then is his establishment of a non-omniscient narrator, which is important in a ghost story, I think.

ETA: Not an "unreliable" narrator, but a consciously limited one, with a particular attention to the needs and appetites of his audience.

It's a pleasure to revisit a favorite story. I was impressed on this reading by how compact it is. Scarcely a wasted word.

The motif of the ancient artifact with Latin inscriptions was pleasingly Machenesque. I particularly liked the dream-image of the man running toward the narrator but not getting closer (during the day).

The rumpled bedsheets hint at some unresolved issues that the Professor is repressing.

I had never looked up Ontography before; I assumed it was a satirical dig at logical positivists or whatever sort of rationalists were offending the author around 1904. I found that is is an actual word: 'A description of the nature and essence of things'. Wonderful irony: the essence of things is exactly what the Professor does not ken.

Edit: rumbled -> rumpled.

Useful quote from the Chabon intro I referenced above:

The story is typical of James, as well, in that when at last we encounter the Horror, there is something about its manifestation, its physical attributes, and its habits that put the reader in mind, however reluctantly, of sex. I say reluctantly, in part, because the cool, fleshy, pink, protuberant, furred, toothed, or mouthed apparitions one finds in M. R. James are so loathsome; and, in part, because James keeps his stories studiously free not merely of references to sexual behavior but of all the hot-and-heavy metaphor and overt Freudian paraphernalia with which supernatural fiction is so often encumbered. James is a hospitable writer, and one wishes not to offend one's host. But the fact remains that "Oh, Whistle, and I'll Come to You, My Lad" is a story about a man pursued into the darkness of a strange bedroom, and all of the teror is ultimately generated by a vision of a horribly disordered bed. The bodily horror, the uncanny, even repulsive nature of sex--a favorite theme of the genre from Stoker to Cronenberg--is a recurring element in the stories of M. R. James, rendered all the more potent because it feels so genuinely unconscious. Sex was undoubtedly the last thing on the mind of M. R. James as he sat down to compose his Christmas creepers, but it is often the first Thing to emerge when the stays of reality are loosened. (xii-xiii)

Chabon has some other remarks about the confirmed bachelorhood of James that really find their fruition in this paragraph.

The type of horror I enjoy best is that which evokes not just an emotional or visceral response but a psychological one as well. James' story establishes that the protagonist, Parkins, is an admitted skeptic (though sheepishly since to question the validity of the supernatural in this story/time-period is an apparent social faux pas), and clutches to the rationale like a security blanket, quick to come up with logical and rational explanations for unusual and weird occurences that he bears witness to. This is all brushed away, in what would normally be a shattering trauma to one's psyche, by witnessing an event or presence that defies all fundamental doctrines of physics. To wake groggly in the middle of the night to a face full of moonlight, and witness a body suddenly rise from the bed across from yours that you know for a fact to be empty. Well, your mind must have a very strong constitution to withstand such an onslaught on what we 'know' to be normal and explainable by hard science, to be contradicted right in front of you. It's this type of psychological horror that has first drawn me to H.P. Lovecraft, when I was younger, as well as his contemporaries. This story was an excellent choice for the discussion group.

The TV Tropes article on "Bedsheet Ghost" dutifully inventories "Oh, Whistle," and commends the BBC adaptation.

>9 bertilak:

Yep, not a wasted word. This applies to all of the author's stories that I've read to date. They are a pleasure to read,and the payoff is almost always what is promised and in the end he really delivers the goods in some very scary entities.

>10 paradoxosalpha:

I'd agree with Chabon. Even the colleague offering to come down and stay in the room with Parkins was a bit suggestive of an illicit assignation, I think. I'm glad the sexual overtones are unconsciously done in the case of James, which is part of their charm. The amorphous, indistinct bedsheet-thing also reminded me of Ramsey Campbell's horrors, although he's an author who deliberately incorporates uncomfortable sexual themes.

>11 lammassu:

I've often considered what my actual reaction to such an experience would be. Troubling thoughts abound!

> 7
I too thought of the climax in Our Lady of Darkness when the creature rises from the bed. There is also a connection of the strange thing waving from the protaganists window. In "Oh Whistle", though, it's seen by someone else - a scared young boy.

"What in the world is the matter with you? What have you been up to? What have you seen?" said the two men.

"Ow, I seen it wive at me out of the winder," wailed the boy, "and I don't like it."

. . .

he happened to look up at the front winder and see it a-wiving at him. It seemed to be a figure of some sort, in white as far as he knew--couldn't see its face; but it wived at him, and it warn't a right thing--not to say not a right person.

>7 gwendetenebre:, 9

Ontography is interesting: I know the term as Ontology, and believe that is the locution in Attic Greek, as well. So in place of "knowledge of the essence of things", James appears to gloss "documentation of the essence of things", another dig at the rationalist.

The very studied critique of rationalism is the very essence of my appreciation of James and Lovecraft. There is much else in both writer's work to love, but if it weren't for that grounding, I would not be near as fond of them.

>13 gwendetenebre:

Good point, Lucien, I was also reminded of that additional OLoD connection. Leiber's entities in that novel often seem to be waving or dancing. Not normally the most sinister behavior, but there is just something wrong about it in the hands of a pro like James or Leiber. And when that entity notices the protagonist, it is simply, effectively chilling!

A really good one. Don't imagine I'll be forgetting this any time soon.

Couldn't help noticing the structural similarities to Thomas Ligotti's "Nethescurial" that we read way back in our first discussion "season". If we look at the James story as having a tripartite structure, we can see it thusly:

Part 1: Skeptical protagonist scoffs at possibility of supernatural phenomena (speaking of skepticism, did anyone else catch the observance of "the Feast of St Thomas the Apostle", Thomas of course being the "Doubting Thomas" who is the archetypal skeptic until being convinced by witnessing a supernatural phenomenon with his own eyes? Very clever, Mr. James.)

Part 2: Protagonist has a dream about supernatural/uncanny phenomenon/event, foreshadowing...

Part 3: Protagonist's encounter with supernatural being/phenomenon in real life.

I thought what made this story work more than anything was the overarching unnaturalness of the ghost. As with a zombie story or movie, what it really stands or falls on is the creator's ability to convince you that there is something fundamentally not right about the supernatural antagonist.

>17 artturnerjr:

LOL - Art, see post >16 gwendetenebre: for more on not-rightness. It's your collective Weird Tradition group mind in action again. :)

Interesting that we've already made comparisons with Fritz Leiber, Ramsey Campbell and Thomas Ligotti. I think M.R. James may be even more of an influence than I originally thought.

>18 gwendetenebre:

You'll also notice that we posted at the exact same time. Fuck, dude - talk about supernatural phenomena! :D

>18 gwendetenebre:

Interesting that we've already made comparisons with Fritz Leiber, Ramsey Campbell and Thomas Ligotti. I think M.R. James may be even more of an influence than I originally thought.

In Supernatural Horror in Literature, Lovecraft writes with remarkable prescience that James "has developed a distinctive style and method likely to serve as models for an enduring line of disciples"(!)

>12 paradoxosalpha:

That was an interesting article about the history and visual impact of the 'bed-sheet ghost'. In terms of relevance to visual fright and the decensitization of the theatrical 'tricks of the trade', we see it today with modern horror movies. Nowadays, when the plot is weak or nonsensical, and the film relies soley on visual stimuli to scare the audience the 'ghost' is very graphic in it's putridness and nastiness. Look at the director's cut of 'Mirrors' to see a good example of pushing the envelope when the plot falls flat. While it may be too late to revive the spookiness of the bed-sheet ghost for today's discerning adults, I do appreciate the more subtle approach of belying the presence of a spectre in more thought out films. A good example is 'A Haunting in Connecticut'. The film makers use very basic effects to make the audience be 'on edge' throughout the movie, a lot of it nothing more, than clever camera angles and editing.

>12 paradoxosalpha:, 21

Agree with lammassu on the subtle approach to horor films. I'm still irrationally scared watching The Shining, and for me the high-water mark of horror cinema are films like Jacob's Ladder or The Kingdom. The psychological element in spades, to be sure. But I can't appreciate many horror films simply because any director can freak me out using all the easy tricks like jumping from behind a door or melodramatic soundtracks, it's more about my vulnerability and says very little about the film's accomplishment.

Anyone seen the BBC adaptation referenced in TV Tropes?!

Clark Ashton Smith on James:

http://www.eldritchdark.com/writings/nonfiction/15

Smith writes that "James is perhaps unsurpassed in originality by any living writer"; quite a compliment coming from a man who was himself one of the most original voices in 20th century literature.

I don't know if such a whistle is referenced outside this story, so the question may not be answerable, but who would have made the whistle and why?

Was it to summon the entity to strangle an enemy? Was it always intended as a snare for the unwary? Or would it have been to call up a sort of worker-spirit that would do the washing, then hang itself up to dry?

>22 elenchus:

Haven't seen that BBC adaptation. I have seen Jacques Tourneur's 1958 CURSE OF THE DEMON (NIGHT OF THE DEMON in the UK) many times, though. Based on "The Casting of the Runes" by James, it is one of the great horror films.

This looks like a good listing of what's out there. I'll have to pick through it later:

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~pardos/MediaList.html

I've also seen Soavi's 1989 THE CHURCH, but it's not a very close adaptation. Lot's of goo 'n gore.

>24 bertilak:

Magic item. Made by elves. Seriously, though, that's a good question! It did seem to have a Machenesque air about it, as you mentioned earlier. Was it somehow able to present itself to a likely candidate? I think that more than mere chance is implied.

>26 gwendetenebre:

Was it somehow able to present itself to a likely candidate? I think that more than mere chance is implied.

Agreed. Parkins does seem to find it quite easily, as I recall.

>26 gwendetenebre: & 27

One whistle to rule them all? ;)

>28 lammassu:

The preciousssss! :D

>29 artturnerjr:

Speaking of the 'one whistle', does anyone know the English translation of the Latin text that Parkin's couldn't decipher? It may hold a clue on the origins of the whistle, if James did indeed create one or else borrow from another source. I'd try, but I have a nasty habit of mercilessly butchering Latin.

I figured that fur was 'thief' but got no further until I consulted The Oracle Wikipedia and found a link to this:

(11) What's the meaning of the "FUR/FLA/FLE/BIS" inscription in "Oh, Whistle, and I'll Come to You, My Lad"?

No explanation of the inscription is given in Michael Cox's annotations for the story in Casting the Runes, but Christopher Roden sums up the various opinions, including some of the less likely ones, in the annotations in A Pleasing Terror (for details of these two books see Questions 13 and 14) . Although I have published several theories in Ghosts & Scholars, to my mind there are only two real possibilities.

There is some disagreement as to whether the words should be read "Furbis, Flabis, Flebis" or "Fur, Flabis, Flebis". I had always thought the former was most likely until someone pointed out to me that H.E. Luxmoore, who was present at M.R. James's reading of the tale in December 1903, referred to the story under the title "Fur Flebis" (see Michael Cox's "Oh, Whistle" annotations in Casting the Runes, p.312). This is pretty conclusive evidence, I think, that the second reading is correct and is what MRJ said when he actually spoke the inscription. Both are, of course, Latin. The first would read "You will steal, you will blow it, you will weep" (but "furbis" would not be the correct Latin in this context, since "furari" - to steal - is a verb in the passive form); the second - more likely - reading is "O thief, you will blow it, you will weep". Or in other words, "Thief - if you blow this whistle you'll be sorry"!

Other theories mentioned in the A Pleasing Terror note include: "You'll blow it, you'll be sorry, you'll go mad", and (covering all the bases!) "O thief, you will polish it, you will blow it twice, you will regret this, you will go mad". Both of these include the correct reading for "furbis" - you will go mad - but only work if the inscription is read as "Flabis, Flebis, Furbis"). It's just possible that as well as the chief meaning, MRJ also intended a punning reference to "bis" - twice - since that's the number of times the whistle is blown.

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~pardos/FAQ.html#anchor169914

In the editions you all read this in, are there swastikas on either side of the QUIS EST ISTE QUI UENIT inscription? If so, what is their significance?

>31 bertilak:

Excellent info - thanks for posting that! I'm not sure that Parkins was actually a thief, though, especially if the whistle somehow placed itself in his hands, as discussed above. In that case, at least, the "thief" was definitely framed! I can see James making the "bis" pun. There is often a subtle undercurrent of odd humor to his stories.

> 32

Yup. They're just fylfot crosses. Unsurprising decoration for medieval English crafts.

>33 gwendetenebre:

So it seems the whistle is actually a fetter for the spectre that haunts any "thief" who "steals" his whistle... by finding it buried in the ground. Man, what a jerk!

>34 paradoxosalpha:

Thanks!

This is only my first time reading this story and only the second James I've read.

So here are my casual thoughts.

My first surprise was how humorous this story was. I found it more funny than scary. However, upon thinking about it more, the image of an entity made up, or surrounded by, bedclothes and sheets, was creepier the more I thought about it.

Third was the disarticulation of cause and effect that, I think, later writers would have used. What I mean is that we are given no straightforward cause and effect, beyond the whistle seemingly summoning something, between the running figure and the ghost or the place of the Templars in the ghost's existence or creation.

In that way it reminds me a bit of Poe's "The Casque of Amontillado" which also completely strips out the motive of revenge to concentrate on the act of revenge.

> 37

And yet the reader can so easily fill in the blanks! James suggests just enough that you can run with it and accept events at face value.

I suspect part of his style was honed through the practice of reading his stories aloud: James had to get a nice feel for what contributed to his audience's engagement, and what was distraction or worse, diluted the effect.

I finished reading Casting the Runes and Other Ghost Stories and wrote my review this evening.

Nicely done, as usual. I have that same volume, mystery asterisk-points and all.

Thanks!

Always enjoy your reviews, paradoxosalpha, esp the magickal links. The mystery asterisks do seem almost calculated! A scholarly approach to the creep-out. Jamesian, indeed.

Besides doing reading for "The Deep Ones" I've been working my way through some back issues of The Fortean Times.

The most recent one has an article on M. R. James with appreciations by various horror authors.

Ramsey Campbell says: "While the Victorian spectre was often aethereal or simply kept its distance, James's apparitions tend to be grisly and physical, though a glimpse of them is frequently enough to provoke a shudder. The sheet had pretty well become the uniform of the traditional ghost, and so (in 'Oh, Whistle, and I'll Come for You, My Lad') James imagines its ulitmate manifestation: a sly black joke, perhaps, but memorably horrible."

>45 RandyStafford:

Ramsey puts it very well. What's the cover date on that issue, Randy? Is it still out on the rack?

Don't have the issue in front of me, but it was still at Barnes & Noble a couple of days ago.

It would be issue #292. September 2012, I think.