tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3852401976091776228.post1961604452060604405..comments2024-03-28T16:39:46.847-04:00Comments on Tellers of Weird Tales: A Survey of Monsters-Part OneTerence E. Hanleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08268641371264950572noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3852401976091776228.post-6450519454064683722014-06-03T19:25:17.935-04:002014-06-03T19:25:17.935-04:00Dear Roderigo,
Here is the link to The Superman i...Dear Roderigo,<br /><br />Here is the link to The Superman in Modern Literature by Leo Berg (1915 or 1916):<br /><br />http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001382778<br /><br />It is on the website of Hathi Trust Digital Library. It looks like a very interesting book. Unfortunately, not being a member, I can't download it.<br /><br />Yes, I knew there was a connection between the first Superman story and the original idea of the Übermensch. Not bad for a Cleveland teenager, although Jerry Siegel, the author, is supposed to have been influenced by Philip Wylie's novel Gladiator (1930).<br /><br />Happy reading.<br /><br />Terence HanleyTerence E. Hanleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08268641371264950572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3852401976091776228.post-61810975390475195202014-06-03T15:28:45.716-04:002014-06-03T15:28:45.716-04:00Hey, Terence,
Thanks for the news. Where did you f...Hey, Terence,<br />Thanks for the news. Where did you find Berg's book online? Would you point me to that? You know your passage "So, it seems to me that somewhere along the line, the Superman--who was not a monster in his inception--came to control the monstrous State" reminded me of the first fanzine superman story by Siegel & Shuster in 1933 "The Reign of Superman" in which he is in fact a monster (some of my students say he still is). I understand that in your passage I mentioned your reference is to Ubermensch, not to the superhero, but some people say (references abound) that the two are in some way connected. You can find that story on line for sure. Best.rbfaverihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11856101600463350015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3852401976091776228.post-55037129493308760072014-06-03T11:03:13.756-04:002014-06-03T11:03:13.756-04:00Dear Roderigo,
Thank you for the list of sources....Dear Roderigo,<br /><br />Thank you for the list of sources. It's a good place to start on this topic of the totalitarian monster. Unfortunately my reading is limited. I haven't even read The Iron Heel by Jack London (1908), an early work on the topic. <br /><br />Sharpe's work is a little academic, but in breezing through it, I found some interesting ideas.<br /><br />"Superstate and Superman" is worth a look. The online version I found seems to be in error from the original, so beware.<br /><br />Superman in Modern Literature (1915) is available online. It looks to be highly readable for a hundred-year-old scholarly work by a German writer. Here's a good quote from that work:<br /><br />The individual begins to be conscious of himself, and rallies his strength for a struggle against the Moloch State, which, as a monster of militarism, capitalism, utilitarianism and socialism, becomes ever more terrible, more cruel, and more brutal, so that finally individualism, finding itself fettered completely, must have recourse to what, politically speaking, is called crime, and to anarchy. (pp. 14-15)<br /><br />One might differ with the details. For example, we're finding that even the democratic State is capable of monstrousness. (For an example, you can follow our current practice to the Moloch of Biblical times. That is as much as I will say on that topic.) The point is that even before nazism, fascism, and Leninism, the State was recognized as a monster.<br /><br />So, it seems to me that somewhere along the line, the Superman--who was not a monster in his inception--came to control the monstrous State. In real life, that would have been in 1917 when the Bolsheviks under Lenin came to power in Russia. Writers of fiction should have anticipated that development. There should have been a fictional totalitarian before there was a real totalitarian. (When I say totalitarian, I mean an individual--a single person--representing the State or controlling the State.) Again, my reading is limited, but I wonder if The Grand Inquisitor from Dostoyevsky, from 1879-1880, can be seen as the first totalitarian in fiction. I don't want to propose it because I haven't read it.<br /><br />As an aside, when I said that philosophy is not my strong suit, I didn't mean that I am not interested in philosophy, only that I'm not well read in philosophy and I don't know the terms and concepts very well.<br /><br />Thanks again.<br /><br />Terence HanleyTerence E. Hanleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08268641371264950572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3852401976091776228.post-62834008711704238512014-06-03T08:46:21.787-04:002014-06-03T08:46:21.787-04:00Sorry for my spelling mistakes on the previous pos...Sorry for my spelling mistakes on the previous post, and I forgot to say that Sharpe's article is available online at < https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229827973_FOUCAULT%27S_MONSTERS_AND_THE_CHALLENGE_OF_LAWby_ANDREW_N._SHARPE > and elsewhere too, it is reallyeasy to find if you get interested.<br />All the best.rbfaverihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11856101600463350015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3852401976091776228.post-27752290991274145072014-06-03T08:34:27.852-04:002014-06-03T08:34:27.852-04:00Hey, Terrence,
First of all, thanks for your long ...Hey, Terrence,<br />First of all, thanks for your long comment. Even though you say philosphy is not your cup of tea (coffee?) I would like to mention this article by Andrew Sharpe "Foucault's Monsters, the Abnormal Individual and the Challenge of English Law". I've been Reading this these days for my classes and maybe you'll find an interesting view on monsters in it. As for the totalitarian monsters, I have to say that there is a very long list of references on the topic, I'll mention the review by Peter Drucker “Superstate and Superman” available at < http://www.vqronline.org/superstate-and-superman >. Concerning authors of ficcion: consider Bernard Shaw’s “Man and Superman”, Jack London’s “The Iron Heel” (and there are many others, I’m just in a hush in here and have to leave to classes). Oh, I didn’t have the opportunity to take a look at it yet, but maybe Leo Berg’s “Superman in Modern Literature” will bring you some hints. Thanks again and keep posting.rbfaverihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11856101600463350015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3852401976091776228.post-69260039880813674202014-06-01T16:02:34.361-04:002014-06-01T16:02:34.361-04:00Dear Roderigo,
It's interesting that you woul...Dear Roderigo,<br /><br />It's interesting that you would propose the Übermensch as the first totalitarian, for I have just encountered the idea of its opposite, the Untermensch, in a book called Barbarossa by Alan Clark. I took note of that term because it involves a topic that I will bring up shortly in my series of articles on the monster of the twenty-first century, namely, the need to dehumanize the victims of one's own monstrousness. The idea of the Übermensch implies a need for an Untermensch, for what is over without under?<br /><br />Philosophy is not my strong suit, but I have read up a little on the idea of the Übermensch since you proposed him as the first totalitarian. First, I will note that the idea comes from Nietzsche's Also Sprach Zarathustra, published in 1883-1885 and translated into English in 1896. Those dates fit pretty well with my developing idea that the historical and cultural events of the twentieth century had their immediate origins in the last decade or so of the nineteenth. Second, the idea of the Übermensch was adapted by the Nazis, who were of course totalitarian. That's not to say Nietzsche was some kind of proto-nazi, or even that he advocated the totalitarian horrors of the twentieth century. I think that his Übermensch is not a totalitarian, but that--in rising above the rest of humanity--he could easily become one.<br /><br />The case for the Übermensch as the first totalitarian is strengthened by his juxtaposition with the "last man" in Nietzsche's work. Not that I would rely overmuch on Wikipedia, but in reading its entry on "The Last Man," I could see immediately Nietzsche's prophetic power, for the last man is the man of today: materially comfortable, secure, apathetic, lacking in passion, vision, and vigor, and incapable of greatness. If the monster of any given age embodies the spirit of that age, then the monster of the twenty-first century must be tied to the man of the current century as a species of last man. That gets to where I was going with this series of articles before I had heard from you.<br /><br />Thank you for writing and thank you for a sound proposal for the first totalitarian in literature. Now I would ask, not just you but everyone: Who was the first totalitarian in fiction? People of the fin de siècle are known for having cast their gaze into the future. So, did any novelist, poet, or writer of short stories before 1917 anticipate the rise of the totalitarian monster in the mold of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, or Mussolini? Did anyone foresee the horrors of the coming century?<br /><br />Terence HanleyTerence E. Hanleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08268641371264950572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3852401976091776228.post-18419777251961615852014-05-31T11:01:07.291-04:002014-05-31T11:01:07.291-04:00< "Maybe the example of the real-world tot...< "Maybe the example of the real-world totalitarian was necessary before he could cross over into literature. If anyone can propose the first totalitarian in literature, I would like to hear about it." ><br /><br />Hi. I'm teaching this semester a course on reading popular fiction, monsters and super-protagonists. I think the idea you are looking for is that of the nineteenth century superman (ubermensch). Thanks for your posts.<br /><br /><br />rbfaverihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11856101600463350015noreply@blogger.com