John Crowley Conversation With Peter Straub

International Association for the Fantastic in the Arts
Brian Attebery, as Editor, for the International Association for the Fantastic
in the Arts
"Peter Straub and John Crowley in Conversation." ICFA 26, March 18, 2005. Moderated by Gary
Wolfe
Author(s): Sherryl Vint
Source: Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts, Vol. 16, No. 1 (61) (Spring 2005), pp. 49-61
Published by: International Association for the Fantastic in the Arts
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43308753
Accessed: 19-02-2016 16:30 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
International Association for the Fantastic in the Arts and Brian Attebery, as Editor, for the International
Association for the Fantastic in the Arts are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
the Fantastic in the Arts.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:30:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
"Peter Straub and John
Crowley in Conversation." ICFA
26, March 18, 2005.
Moderated by Gary Wolfe
Sherryl Vint , editor and transcriber
Wolfe: My role here is to simplyintroducetwo guests who don't need to be

introduced,butI'm going to anyway. We actuallywere sittingat thebar a lit-
tle bit earlierand I came up withsome reallygood ideas which I'm going to
introduceonly as needed. I do wantto recommendthe most recentnovel by
PeterStraub,In theNightRoom, whichhas veryinteresting thingsto do with
thenatureof realityand fictionand timeand narrationand all sortsofthingsas
does the forthcoming novel by JohnCrowley,Lord Byron's Novel: The Eve-
ning Land which is. . . . Well, I'm notgoingto tellyou too much about thatbe-
cause nobody here has read ityet.
We held a discussion like thislast fall in Chicago at theChicago Humanities

Festival on thetopic of timeand fiction,and itturnedout thatthesetwo gen-
tlemenhad veryinteresting parallel butnot identicalideas about that. So we
could certainlygo back to thattopic. But thefirstthingthatI wantedto do is
simplyask Johnand Peterifyou have anythingthatyou'd like to ask theother
about or wantto talk about.
Straub: Well I do actually,and I mentionedthis to Johnbefore,about 20

years ago therewas a greatPEN Conferencein Manhattancalled The Imagi-
nationof theState.. .
Crowley: The Imaginationof the Writerand theImagination of theState
Straub: And at thisCongresstherewas a session about science fictionheld in

a beautifulas I remembersmall room high up in this hotel with windowed
walls, and Johnforsome reason stood up and said thathe had begun writing
science fiction because he saw it as a way of attaining the life of an
old-fashionedman of letters.That is, you producenovels and produce works
of various kindsand keep body and soul togetherand feedyourselfand your
family. So, what I wantto ask is, how has thatturnedout?
Vol.16,No.1,Journal
oftheFantastic
intheArts
©2005,International
Copyright fortheFantastic
Association intheArts.
^
"Peter Straub and John Crowley in Conversation"
Crowley: Ah, it's turnedout splendidly. I thinkI knew what I meantat the
time,since I hadn't writtenverymuch at thetime,you have to remember. I
only had a couple of books out at thetime. I stillthinkit's kind of true,and I
thinkthatin a certainsense you know verywell whatI was talkingabout be-
cause you've been more successfulat itthanI have, certainly. HenryJames
said at one point,said about his own life,"I have enough ideas fortales now to
last me a lifetime. And it seems like to writea few very nice littletales is
enough workfora lifetime." And I was verystruckby this,not because nec-
essarilyI had ambitionsto be HenryJames,butitseemed like a verycozy way
to spend a lifetimeof work,you know. Get up, get a bunch of ideas forlittle
tales together,and do them. And whatI had only begun to understandat the
time,withscience fictionparticularly, withinthisfield,you could live the life
of a man of letters,because everyoneis interestedin whatyou have to say and
in yournatureas a personand creator- and it wasn't veiy manypeople but
thatwas the idea back when therewere such thingsas men of lettersand the
proportionof readersto generalpopulationwas even lowerthanitis now, and
so in thatsense ithas workedout verywell. You and I know thatwe can't ex-
pressour gratitudesufficiently this,foryou guys - people like you who love
these books and wantto hear about how theyare done and would listento us
talk and ponderall about stuff
Straub: You haven't startingponderingyet.. .
Crowley: Yes, of course,pondering.Know whatyourlimitsare. I thinkthat

in a certainsense itreallyhas workedout. I thinkthatI get to claim that. It is
notas ifI have writtenas muchnon-fictionas some of themen and women of
lettersbeforeus here,butyeah, sure,it's workedout. How about foryou?
Straub: On thewhole I'd say,yeah,it's turnedout all right.My father'sfears

formyeventual imprisonment, neverquite .... theworld didn't workout that
way. And my mother's utter thatI would eventuallywind up on the
terror
Bowery, thatalso never happened. And I did keep myfamilyfed and all that,
and I managedto have a lovelytimeinthemidstof all sortsof agonies and ....
Crowley: There is somethingabout .... I thinkit's truethatwithinthis,witha

genre,you can do that. You can say, alright,I know thatif I produce a book
everytwo years or whateverand theyare OK books and theymeet some sort
of general expectationof the readership,thatyou are kind of guaranteedthe
kindof lifethata hard-workingwriterof the past could have, which you are
not guaranteedin any otherisland of thiswriterlyuniverse.
Straub: A long time ago I heard Brian Aldiss say somethingquite similar,
thoughhis angle was a littledifferent.What Brian said, and it was probably
50 Journal of the Fantastic
SherrylVint
here at some point,was thatin science fictionyou mightnot have a massive

audience, but you would have an audience thatreally cared. And wherever
you wentin the world,you had friendsthere. So you had people to go to res-
taurantswith,people to drinkwith,people who would put you up in their
houses. There is somethingsortof medievalabout this. In thegenrein which
I began to putmymuddyfootstepson thepath,probablymostof thosehouses
you wouldn'twantto stayin,and thesense of a cohesiveness among theread-
ershipdoesn't quite pertain. I thinkanyhow,I also wanted a popular audi-
ence, which forquite a timeI managedto get,but it's certainty.... itis I think
a matterof some honorto bothof us thatwe have managedto keep at itand to
constructsomethinglike careersover quite a time now.
Crowley: I thinkthatthe . . . .you wouldn'tcall itadulation.. . buttheattention

of a numberof seriousreaderswho will readyourstuff,notjust once butmore
thanonce, and who will wantto talkto you about it,is marvelousas well. The
difficulty sometimesis thatyou can feel like you're . . . thatwhat's important
to you in thewritingof thebook is notwhat's important to thepeople reading
it. There is a qualityto whatyou have writtenthat,in a certainsense, is the
kindofthingthattheylook forin books of all kinds,and iftheyfindit doesn't
matterifit's. . . . they'lltake itforwhatitis, and theydon't discriminateneces-
sarilybetween one kind of thatsortof thingand anotherone of thatsortof
thing. It's like an alcoholic who can findthe same, you know, whateverhe
needs in the bottleof Chateau Lafite Rothschild'39 and a bottleof discount
vodka. It's the same stuffand . . .
Straub: Aristocratvodka. . . .
Crowley: But is whattheyare findingin you whatyou thinkis special to it,or

is itonly whatyou share withotherwriterswho theyalso like. And thishap-
pens to me- thatpeople will come up to you and - itwill be like this- and
say, "Oh, I am so glad to meetyou. I've read all yourbooks and I thinkyou
arejust wonderfuland everybook comes out and I finditand read it. You're
one of my two favoritewriters "
Straub: Two favoritewriters,that's right
Crowley: And I've learnedto not ask who theotheris ....
Straub: The otherone is Danielle Steele
Crowley: Turnsout to be H.P. Lovecraft. It is hardto rememberwho....
Straub: You don't see yourselfas Lovecraftian?
In the Arts 51
Crowley: No, butsomebodydoes. I don't knowquite whattheconnectionis;

it's an undergroundconnectionthatI don't. ... It sortof diminishesyoursense
of being an individualand you feel like you are a participantin a greatworld.
But thatmusthave been whatold-fashionedmen of lettersdid, I mean theold
Grub Streetwriters.They were,you know,all of a pool, not exactlyreplace-
able, butnotall thatindividual. So that,withall of thedelightthatI take in be-
ing here and having my books stay in print.... You know how valuable that
is? How rareit is fora writerto have his books. . . . Books of mine thatwere
written30 years ago are in print.I mean, and theyare not selling verymany
copies. It's not like I sell millionsand millionsof copies and that's why my
books are in print.They are in printbecause a small numberof people wantto
have them,a small number,buta largeenough number,a large enough small
numberis aroundthatwill keep themin print,and that's whatyou wantabout
all else...
Straub: Above all else....
Crowley: ... .as a writer,you wantyourbooks to stay in print.
Straub: Yeah, exactly.
Wolfe: I thinkwhat Brian Aldiss said, or at least on the same topic, he de-
scribedhimselfand anotherartistas "we are all householdnames, but in very
fewhouseholds. And notnecessarilytheones thatyou would actuallywantto
be in." But theotherthingthatI wantedto mentionis thatit's OK to say adu-
lation,because adulation is truly. . . thereare differentdegrees of readership
and adulation is nota degree of readershipto sneer at. But you did mention,
Lovecraft,now thisis anotherinteresting topicthathas to do withancestorsor
the anxietyof influence,to use a phrase fromsomebody who really loves
John'swork. Peterhas just finishededitingtheLibraryof America's edition
of The Tales ofH.P. Lovecraftand Johnhas just finishedwritinga novel "by"
Lord Byron....Why this ... Is theresome reasons for looking at roots, for
lookingback, to looking at ancestorsat thistime in yourcareer?
Straub: H.P. Lovecraftwould be an ancestorof mine only in the most ge-

nericway. He is a writerthatI read withgreataffectionwhen I was 12 or 13
and thenceased to read untilI was inmyearly30s whenat theurgingsof some
friendsI went back and I felt I read themin a sortof delirious and giddy
way,occupied, taken-up by the sort ofcrazypowerthatinhabitssome of those
stories,so I'd tell, I'd point at a phone booth and say to my wife you know
"Yog-Sothoth is in thatphone." And thenI filteredaway fromhimagain until
to
I was asked go through the ... all of Lovecraftand make selections forthe
SherrylVint
stories. At which pointI discovered thathe was much betterthanI had ac-
knowledged,and it is ... he hadn't reallybeen muchof an influenceupon me,
not specifically. Not like Ramsey Campbell and not like Thomas Ligotti....
My models were always verydifferent.But I've discovered.. . I don't know if
this is relevantto this,but I discovered thatmuch of what I had taken for
Lovecraft'sdeepest faultswere in factwished upon himby AugustDerlethin
rewritingor concluding wisps of storiesthathe published under both their
names. It is trueLovecraftused adjectives intheripest,in factmostpurple.. . .
he nevermetan adjective he didn't like. He was an autodidact. The poor guy
had two nervousbreakdownsin highschool. His fatherdied of syphilisand
was transferred to the hospitalwherehe died. His motherwas nuts. He was
raisedby two old ladies. He was frail. He was reallysmart. He was shy. He
fellin love withastronomyobviouslybecause itallowed himto escape intoa
vast,distantimmensity, whichhe quicklypopulatedwithmonstersbecause in
his worldmonsterswere always present. So I liked all that,and itoccurredto
me thatto object to his essentialmannerwas to take a verystrictconstruction-
istview about writingand essentiallyan ungenerousone. AfterI editedthis
volume thatcame out most reviewers,you know, were pleased with it and
theyfoundthingsto like,even people who were a bitstern. The onlyone who
took the old-fashionedapproach was a guy named Bill Marx in Boston who
reviews books and does a programon Boston Public Radio. And he said, "I
loved it when I was a kid and I was ridiculous. I read these things:every-
thing's liquid, everythingsquishes, everythinghas tentacles. Give me a
break,you know... This isn't scary." To do that is to miss the point,you
know. It has to be accepted kind of on its own terms. You have to look for
whatitexpresses and see how itpans out. He was a. . . I discovered he was a
moredeliberate,leisurely,atmosphericwriterthanI had remembered.And I
wound up feelingveryaffectionateabout Lovecraft. The reason theyasked
me to do it, of course, was not because I had any deep affiliationswith
Lovecraft,but because theydid not want anotherperson to do it. Another
specificperson. A personwho was here lastyear,who verymuch wantedthe
job. They wanted somebody whose admirationwas a littlemore measured.
And also when theytold me thatI could not have the two volumes that I
wantedbut would have to confinemyselfto one volume which meantthatI
couldn't do all thestoriesand meant I didn'tscreamand yell fora month.
I said, OK, I'll give you 800 pages of thebeststories,themosttypicalstories,
themostachieved storiesthatI can find. And itwas a greatexperience,really.
Doing the notes was also a wonderfulexperience. I learneda lot.
Crowley: The onlyproblemwiththateditionof H.P. Lovecraftis thatitdoes-

n't have an introduction,saying some of those things,which I would have
loved to have read and I'm reallyreallysorrythatit's notthereand I wish that
you would writesomethingabout Lovecraft....
In the Arts 53
Straub: Don't say thatin frontof Charlie Brown
Wolfe: You've alreadygiven him his scoop forthe night.
Crowley: Leslie Fiedler said once, abouttheclassics of AmericanLiterature,

he said it was odd thatmany of the greatestAmerican works of fictionhad
spent some time on the children's shelf: includingHuckleberryFinn and
Moby Dick and JamesFenimoreCooper and several others.. . and he said, he
just sortof in parentheses,sortof in passingsaid, theones thatmissed thispas-
sage thoughthechildren's literaturesectionend up as books foradolescents.
And that's, you know Thomas Wolfe and H.P. Lovecraft and even Edgar
Allan Poe. And he describesthemas, you know,as the less achieved kindsof
writers.I thinkit is very interesting to hear you talk about Lovecraftin this
kindof lovingyet,you know,in a veryopen-eyedkindof way, because that's
how I feltabout Byronand have always feltabout Byron,and Byron is also
one of people thatends up as a writerforadolescents and in a certainsense,
kids; thereis a largepartof Byron's oeuvrethatdoesn't survivebeing an ado-
lescent. If you ever read him,you had to read him in adolescence; and ifyou
don't read himas an adolescent,you're nevergoing to read him. And an ado-
lescentmale, too.
Straub: Like Thomas Wolfe
Crowley: Yes, like Thomas Wolfe. I mean, my relationswithByron go far

back. But theydon't have to do verymuch withhis poetry,except for"Don
Juan,"which is an achievementthatis unexampledin English literature and is
deathless. Finally when he foundout whathe could do, and he finallydid it,
and showed thedepthand size of his real humanity.In a lot of his otherstuff
he doesn't .... It's silly. It's just silly. And in ways that... You know,no mat-
ter how much affectionyou have forhim you are not going to read "The
Giaour" or,you know,some of thosepoems - you know,"Lara." They are
just highlycolored. Tom Disch, in a selectionhe did of Byron's poems, in his
introductioncompared him to Rudolph Valentino,as an iconic figure. And
that'sexactlyright,exactlyrightin manyways. Both thekindof responseshe
createsin women,and thekindofresponseshe createsin men,and his kindof,
you know,his openness to eroticseizure in a certainway; and also his phoni-
ness. It's all thereand it'sjust right.But also whatinterestedme in Byronand
whatintriguedme in Byronand whatI came to love fromthe beginningwas
not his poetrybut his prose, which consists of his lettersand journals. He
never triedto writeanythingin prose fiction. Well, he did, once - we all
knowthatstory. He and Mary Shelley and Shelley and Polidori are all sitting
aroundthefireand Mary says, "let's tell a story";and so theydo and Byron's
SherrylVint
nevergot finishedat all; it exists only as a fragmentand not a verygood one

either. But I always thoughtthat the humanityand the Byron-ness,the
Byronicness,thathe showed in his letterswas so much more engaging than
the thingsin his most Byronic poems; and I got very intriguedby that,and
that's what I thought... It had always seemed a shame thathe didn't get to
writea novel, thathe should have writtena novel, thatifhe had come around
to writinga novel itwould have been a greatnovel. His only extensivework
in prose is an autobiography,whichhis friendsand familyand closest admir-
ers burnedwhen he was dead because theydidn't think... theythoughtit
would reflectshame on his. . . . Whatever.. . .Theywere wrong. It was an awful
piece of literaryvandalism which is inexcusable. So I thought,I've always
been sorrythathe couldn't,withintheimaginationof his timeand theplace he
had in lettersat thetime,thathe couldn't conceive of writingthe kindof fic-
tionthathe could reallyhave writtenhad hejust lethimselfgo. And so I said,
OK, I'll do itforhim. And thiskindof impertinenceis you know ... 20 years
ago I firstgot thisidea, nearly20 years ago when I firstthoughtof this,I told
my thenagent Kirby McCauly thatfinallyI had come up withan idea fora
best-sellingnovel. Afterall my attempts,you know, attemptsat whatever,
writingthese science fictions,whateverI had done, now I had it. I was going
to writeLord Byron's novel. And Kirbysaid, "Well, I guess ifyou reallyre-
ally wantto writethatbook, John,you should writethebook thatyou wantto
write." So I said, all right,forgetit. I'll do somethingelse. But I did notgive
it up. It's one of those thingsthathappensto you; thereare thingsthatlast a
long timein yourlife. So now I have finallynow writtenLord Byron's novel.
And itwas onlysupposed to be just that,I mean I gottalkedout of that,just re-
ally, creatingsomebody else's novel. There was a famous Portuguesepoet,
FernandoPessoa who has writtennotonlyhis own poems butalso thepoems
of 6 or 8 otherpeople who all have a completelydifferent stylefromhis and a
different name and publishtheirown books all undertheirdifferent names. . .
Straub: Heteronyms
Crowley: Heteronyms.Wow. That's not a sexual perversion. And itwas

kindof like that: nobody is going to putup withthat,just Lord Byron's novel
all by itself,so itcomes withan armatureof otherstuffthatis mostlyjust me
foolingaround,butI reallydid writethewhole thingand it's reallyreallyfun.
And I've been pleased to findout thatit's good enough to pass the testwith
some Byronexpertswho say itsortof sounds like Byron,itreallydoes sortof
sound like Byron.
Straub: It was veryconvincing. What were the personalqualities thatyou

admiredin Byron? Because veryclearlyyou do. . ..
In the Arts 55
Crowley: It's hardto say. I mean, he was an egotistand he was not nice in
many ways. It's not like I.... I did like him,but what really,what it's more
like you apprehendhimcompletelyas a humanbeing. There are just notthat
manyfiguresin history,even theones thatyou admire,thatyou reallyfeel like
you are sittingrightnext to them,with theirminds and beings completely
open to you. And that'stheway he is in his lettersandjournals to me,youjust
instantly knowhim. And he's gothis bad qualitiesand he's self-indulgent and
he's kindof selfishin certainways, buthe's also suddenlygenerousand sud-
denly wise in ways we never expected fromhim. And funny,I mean really
funny.His lettersandjournals are hilarious. And wise and smartand quick to
come to conclusions... I mean, this is a guy you'd want to sit down and talk
withand you'd just listento forever.I mean,you don't talk,you'd just listen.
Even thoughhe would grantyou a lotof space foryourself,and he did to Shel-
ley. The place I startedwithByron,actually- I wrotea play withByronand
Shelley in it,towardtheend of the60s, because theyseemed like such a clear
match. Shelley was this kind of idealist Utopianguy, remote,kind of airy
character. And Byron was intenselyhumanand bound up in his own social
sense of theworldand his own sense of himselfas a man and lord and all this
kindof stuff.And theyjust nevermatched,buttheyadmiredeach otherenor-
mously,and theygot along, and I thoughtI can see myselfin a certainsense
moreShelley-esque thanByronic,butI would loved to have sat down and lis-
tened; and I'm sure Byronand I could have had some greatnightstogether.
And it's morethatthanan admiration.I'm notsureI reallyadmirehim. I just
knowhim. He's more like a buddy,morethanhe is an idol or a mentor.
Wolfe: Do you have any writerslike thatin your life?
Straub: Writerslike Byron?
Wolfe: Who are yourbuddies?
Straub: Well, um,I neverconsideredthis. StephenKing, whom I know per-

sonallyand as a writerand whomI mightbe able to extrapolatefromhis work,
althoughnevercompletely. It's hardforme to distinguishthewritersI know
fromtheirworkinthepast fromthewritersI know as friendsso I'm notreally
sure.
Wolfe: I was thinkingabout,well, ancestralbuddies.. . HenryJames. Could

you have a long talk withHenryJames?
Straub: I sortof have some apprehensionof James. I have read hisjournals

and I read big slugs of his lettersand I read the Leon Edel biographytwice.
And my friendDavid Plant told me thatafterhe'd read the Edel biography
SherrylVint
he'd realized thathe liked HenryJaniesless thanhe had when he started. It

had the reverseeffecton me because it enabled me to see HenryJamesas a
verycontemporaryhuman being,thatis contemporaryin the honestyof his
thought,in theway he understoodthatjoy and pain are neverreallyall thatfar
apart and thatone always involves the other. He understoodthe natureof
grief,thatgriefis universal,thatit ties us to the human communityat large,
and thatitenlargesand deepens ourown souls, I guess, and certainlyour char-
acters. Once I began to see that,all thekindof old-maidishnessbegan to seem
weightlessin the face of what looked to me like tremendousmoral authority.
And so I don't know what Henry Jameswould make of me - probablynot
much- butitwould be an honorto spend an eveningwithhimdrinkingsherry
or whateverit is thatyou do withHenryJames.
Wolfe: Here is anothernotethatwe have fromthebar. Gnosticism. Well, it's

nota joke. This is .... As a historicalphilosophy,world-view,Gnosticismis
muchmore evidentin John'sAegyptnovels thanitis probablyin Peter's, but
as a means of apprehendingreality,it's at work in both of your bodies of
work. Peter,I'm going to ask you to startwiththis.
Straub: Ok, well, as is true with JohnI thinkI became acquainted with
Gnosticism throughthe work of Francis Yates, the book about Giordano
Bruno and thenI read the book about memory.. .
Crowley: The Artof Memory
Straub: The Artof Memory. I read thesebooks witha good deal of concen-
trationin themid 70s. I was livingin London, and I even wentto theWarburg
Institute just to walk aroundand see whereshe spenthertime. I founditvery
beautiful,without I didn't understandthisat the time,but I was looking
fora kind of alternativeto standardChristianbelief which I had already re-
jected, althoughmy sense of a spiritualreality(if I may speak in such fuzzy
terms)was powerfulenough so thatI couldn't turnmy back on thatside of
thingscompletely. Gnosticism,which I didn't understandat all at the time,
seemed to offera kindof way in to a realmthatI had perceivedonlyat certain
veryprivilegedmoments. Later on, I came across... much lateron I came
across theGospel of Thomas whichI foundveryverymovingand kindof ex-
planatory.I wished to believe thatitas a whole was as you could say theGos-
pel of Truth. The Gospel of Thomas consistsentirelyof statementsattributed
to Jesus. Jesussays.... BANG ... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 down to 130 or something
.... Be as passers by,Jesussays. OtherthingsintheGospel of Thomas moved
me verydeeply and to me theyhad whatseemed, whatI could thinkto be, the
authentictone of the 1stcentury,in otherwords,of a worldjust removedfrom
the archaic world. There are two... and I've writtenthese into two novels.
In the Arts 57
There were statementsfromthe Gospel of Thomas about the Kingdom of

Heaven. One was the kingdomof heaven is like a woman who goes to the
market,fillsa sack withgrain,and carriesthesack home withoutnoticingthat
thesack has a hole in it,and thenonce she getshome discoversthatthesack is
empty. The kingdomof heaven. The second one says thekingdomof heaven
is like a man who wishes to assassinate a noble and goes out and buys a sword
and sharpenstheswordon thewall of his house and thengoes out and assassi-
nates the noble. These are supposed to be statementsthatare by Jesus,and
that'stheJesus,you know,thatI wantto believe in,because ifyou don't have
stufflike thatthenitdoesn't count. I mean thisis thepointof view, purely,of
someone meant to be a horrorwriter,but not content,not contentwith the
usual, easy, dim-wittedformulationsof horror. I've foundthese thingsdis-
turbing,beautiful,and theyseemed so authenticto me that,as I say, I was
compelled to writethemdown and inserttheminto fiction. Otherwisethan
thatthereis thatbeautifulbusiness of as above, so below, which means that
we share a common being withthe realmsabove.
Crowley: I have a feelingthatI also was introducedto Gnosticismthrough

Frances Yates, and The Artof Memoryand her books about Gnosis through
Hermeticwritings,which are only one strandof Gnosticism. The book thatI
discovered afterthat- and I can't rememberhow, who pointedit to me -
was Hans Jonas,thescholarof Gnosticism,who onlywroteone book about it
and thendroppedthetopic and wenton to writeotherthings,The GnosticRe-
ligion, in which he tries to rediscoverthese trendsin Gnostic thoughtfrom
pre-ChristianthroughChristianGnosticism,and he deals with a lot of the
greatthinkers,Marcion,Valentinusand thoseguys. And thethingthatgotme
most in those things... I can rememberwhen I was a kid and hearingabout
Origen,who was theChristian,one of the Christianfathersof the Church,or
he would have been except he got kickedout forbeing a radical at one point,
and I was readingin a Catholic encyclopediawhen I was in high school, you
know,spendingtimein studyhall. And itsaid Origen believed thattherewas
our world in which God made the worldand createdAdam and Eve and then
Jesuscame and thenwe all had to eitherbe good Christiansor notand thenco-
mes the end of the world and "the heavens will be rolled up as a scroll," and
thenOrigen said thenthereis going to come a new world afterthat,which is
goingto workdifferently. And I thoughtand tookthatintomyheart- which
had been kindof limitedor chilled by Christianity - and suddenlytherewas
thissortof huh,oh, OK, well, thisis onlyone of lots. That's OK then. Well, I
can handle it if it's only going to be one of many. That's OK. But itwas the
idea thatthisis all thereis- that's was whatwas so loony. And the Gnostic
universe is - in Valentinus,thereare 365 universes between ours and the
outsidemost,all nested,kindof like nestingdolls, and the idea thateveryone
of themis a universe! It's a littlebit like bubble universesin modernastro-
SherrylVint
physics,you know, theyall are generatingconstantly,popping offone after

anotherlike foam on the head of a beer. And that's a Gnostic universetoo.
And theseGnostic universeswere like theuniversethatI feltand imaginedin
thatway, in thesense of being multiple,multiplicitous,and having- and be-
ing eitherarrangedin a hierarchyor a chaos of creationsall inside one an-
other,whichseemed to be a cool idea. And thenI had one idea thatI wantedto
but I wasn't sure thatI could grasp,and thatwas the sense thattherewas an
outermostuniverse,which is God, and fromthatoutermostworld thereis a
descent, a gradual descent where things get worse and worse and worse
throughthese 365 universesuntilyou end up withthe worstuniverseof all,
whichhas to be thisone. And we live in it. But ifyou keep on going down -
because thereis a downward,fartherdownward,startingfromthe outside of
mostof yourskin so to speak - you can keep on going down fartherand far-
therdownwardinthesame numberof universesuntilyou getdown to thevery
bottominside,which is thesame as theoutside. So it's like a Möbius stripor
whatever,so thatGod is the most infinitesimalcentreas well, which seems
like reallycool. . . I don't knowthatanyof thisstrikesme as convincing,or. . . .
Because it's not supposed to.... The whole idea is that it is supposed to be
somethingthatyou eithercome to know or don't come to know. And so you
miss it,and so you thinkthatthisis theworld,and you're wrong. And ifyou
come to know thatitis not,you know somethingthatyou didn't know before,
and that'sredemption.That's all, theonly redemptionthereis, is knowledge,
that's what gnosis is, is knowledge. The only redemptionthereis, is knowl-
edge. Valentīnussaid: I believe in redemptiontoo, I believe in the Rebirth,I
believe in all thisstufftoo - but only beforeyou die. Afteryou die, it's -
sorry,you blew it. You didn't get it.
Straub: He was quotingJohnCrowley when he said that.
Crowley: So, it was enormouslyconvincingto me, and touchingto me in

those kinds of ways, and that's what got me the most about it,I think. Then
you cast stories,or theycast theseamazing storieswhichwere about thetravel
down fromtheseheightsof theupperworlddown to the lowerworlds and the
difficultyof . . . the anguish, the sufferingof a soul going down, coming
throughthe worlds gettingworse and worse and gettingburdenedwithmore
and more materialstuffuntilyou end up in our world where you just ... you
thatyou have a spiritualcentreand you've for-
can't even . . . you've forgotten
gottenall thatkind of stuff,and you are wanderingaround lost.... These are
thekindof storiesthatyou tell all thetime,right. Then you findout,oh, I'm
reallya high-classpersonwho has lost his way, and I can findmy way back,
and findmyway to thatpathand make myway back up to thekingwhose son
I reallytrulyam. You know,we've toldthesestoriesthousandsof times,and I
foundout thatthe Gnostic impulse is in those romance stories. They are in
In the Arts 59
Star Wars,forChrist's sake, you know, The Matrix... all those storiesare in
factGnostictales. Or, that'sgoing too far,buttheysharethatimpulse. And it
turnsout to be a verydeep one about losingyourpatrimonyin a betterworld
and ending up lost in this world,and the abilityto figurethatout is the only
salvationthatthereis. That's whatreallymoved me. And the way thatthey
can tell storiesabout, forinstance,the lost Sophia, the lost wisdom of God,
who gets exiled - fora in catastrophethathappens to God beforethe exis-
tence of matter,and Sophia falls fromgrace and the higherworld and has to
sufferand weep and rememberher lostworld,and each of thesethings- her
suffering, herweeping,her fallingand herremembering- all createthema-
terialworld thatwe live in. And that's wherewe live. We live in the ... we
live withinthe body of fallen Wisdom, and that's really cool. That's like
TowingJehovahonlyeven moreso. It's discoveringtheGod thatyou inhabit,
and I just thoughtthatthatwas just wonderful.And it's possibly a littlelike
Petersays - this is a Christianitythatis, it has somethingto do withChris-
tianity,notmuch,butit's theone I could live within.It doesn't mean thatI be-
thing. Knowledge is one thing,belief is another.
lieve it. Belief is a different
That's what the Gnostics are tellingus.
Straub: There is one more thoughtabout this. EverythingJohnsaid is very

beautifuland refersto a verybeautifulkind of framework.It's importantto
rememberthatalthoughtheworld is fallen,theworld itselfis notevil, butit's
just filledwithsorrow.
Crowley: Yes, right
Straub: Leading to myearliercommentsabout grief.. . The otherthingthatI

responded to very stronglywhen I just began actually to learn something
about Gnosticism was its multiplicity. You can buy this great book, The
Gnostic Gospels, thathas everythingdiscovered and thereis one version of,
you know,thereal reality,theactual truth,afteranother. Sometimestheyare
incongruent;sometimestheytotallydisagreewithone another;some of them
are completelycrazy. A lot of themare in these beautifulfragmentslike the
verse of Sappho so you mustinterpolate,in theellipses, to figureout what is
going on
Crowley: A lot of missingwords
Straub: A lot of missingwords because thepapers are all brokenand shred-

ded. There is a beautifulone called "ThunderPerfectMind" which is an ad-
dress froma female god who was really really angry. And it's filled with
resonantphrases,greattumbling,rolling,pissed-offclauses. Now whatI like
aboutthisis thecontradictory-ness, therangeof choice available, the factthat
SherrylVint
theyare always contentious,and some persuasive voices: some persuasive,

some not. But all settingup theirbattleat thesame timeso thatwe don't have
thisauthoritarian, fromthe top down, attitude,thatintendsto tell us how to
think, how to live, whatthereal deal is. Gnosticsbelieved thatiftheyknew it,
itwas true. And whatevertheyknew was whattheybelieved. So therewas a
.... It's a farmore democraticarrangement.
Crowley: I thinkthereis no questionthat.... I see exactlywhatyou mean and

it's thegreatestthing.I always feltfromwhenI was a littlekid thatI could get
thetruthwhen I could say I know something,and itwas just a shock to me to
findout thatmost people don't thinkthatway. They wantto believe things
thatcomfortthemor strikethemor whateverbut not I thoughtit was just
as funto findout thatsomethingwas false as to findout thatit was true,be-
cause both are knowing. And I thoughtthatI was gettingcloser to being a
betterperson ifI foundout thatsome belief in god wasn't trueas muchas ifI
foundout somethingabout humanlifethatI figuredout was true.
Straub: That's right.Let mejust give one morepoint. This is very.... This is
intimatelytied.... This is somethinga writer.... Writersare foreversaying
"No, it's notthatway. I know it's thisway. It's not like that. It's like this."
Whyelse go to all thattroubleof writinga novel? You are tryingto. . . . Con-
sciously or notyou are tryingto demonstrateand elaborateyourown pointof
view as complexlyas possible,withas muchnuance as possible, withas much
irresolutionor vacillation,but withas much convictionas you can so as to
make yourinnerworldseem understandableor at least communicableto oth-
ers. If I go on I'm going to regretit,so I'm going to stop.
Crowley: We should give these guys a chance. . . .
Wolfe: I know. I'm reallyenjoyingthisand I could listento thisforanother

halfan hour. But I know thereare people who probablywantto have ques-
tions. Are thereany questionsor commentsfromthe pit of fallenreality?
[the session concludes with questions from the audience answered by

Crowley and Straub]
In the Arts 61

John Crowley Conversation With Peter Straub

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

John Crowley Conversation With Peter Straub

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

International Association for the Fantastic in the Arts

Crowley in Conversation." ICFA

26, March 18, 2005.

Moderated by Gary Wolfe

Sherryl Vint , editor and transcriber

Wolfe: My role here is to simplyintroducetwo guests who don't need to be

We held a discussion like thislast fall in Chicago at theChicago Humanities

Straub: Well I do actually,and I mentionedthis to Johnbefore,about 20

Crowley: The Imaginationof the Writerand theImagination of theState

Straub: And at thisCongresstherewas a session about science fictionheld in

Straub: You haven't startingponderingyet.. .

Crowley: Yes, of course,pondering.Know whatyourlimitsare. I thinkthat

Straub: On thewhole I'd say,yeah,it's turnedout all right.My father'sfears

Crowley: There is somethingabout .... I thinkit's truethatwithinthis,witha

50 Journal of the Fantastic

here at some point,was thatin science fictionyou mightnot have a massive

Crowley: I thinkthatthe . . . .you wouldn'tcall itadulation.. . buttheattention

Crowley: But is whattheyare findingin you whatyou thinkis special to it,or

Straub: Two favoritewriters,that's right

Crowley: And I've learnedto not ask who theotheris ....

Straub: The otherone is Danielle Steele

Crowley: Turnsout to be H.P. Lovecraft. It is hardto rememberwho....

Straub: You don't see yourselfas Lovecraftian?

Crowley: No, butsomebodydoes. I don't knowquite whattheconnectionis;

Straub: Above all else....

Crowley: ... .as a writer,you wantyourbooks to stay in print.

Straub: Yeah, exactly.

Straub: H.P. Lovecraftwould be an ancestorof mine only in the most ge-

52 Journal of the Fantastic

Crowley: The onlyproblemwiththateditionof H.P. Lovecraftis thatitdoes-

Straub: Don't say thatin frontof Charlie Brown

Wolfe: You've alreadygiven him his scoop forthe night.

Crowley: Leslie Fiedler said once, abouttheclassics of AmericanLiterature,

Straub: Like Thomas Wolfe

Crowley: Yes, like Thomas Wolfe. I mean, my relationswithByron go far

54 Journal of the Fantastic

nevergot finishedat all; it exists only as a fragmentand not a verygood one

Crowley: Heteronyms.Wow. That's not a sexual perversion. And itwas

Straub: It was veryconvincing. What were the personalqualities thatyou

Wolfe: Do you have any writerslike thatin your life?

Straub: Writerslike Byron?

Wolfe: Who are yourbuddies?

Straub: Well, um,I neverconsideredthis. StephenKing, whom I know per-

Wolfe: I was thinkingabout,well, ancestralbuddies.. . HenryJames. Could

Straub: I sortof have some apprehensionof James. I have read hisjournals

56 Journal of the Fantastic

he'd realized thathe liked HenryJaniesless thanhe had when he started. It

Wolfe: Here is anothernotethatwe have fromthebar. Gnosticism. Well, it's

Crowley: The Artof Memory

There were statementsfromthe Gospel of Thomas about the Kingdom of

Crowley: I have a feelingthatI also was introducedto Gnosticismthrough

58 Journal of the Fantastic

physics,you know, theyall are generatingconstantly,popping offone after

Straub: He was quotingJohnCrowley when he said that.

Crowley: So, it was enormouslyconvincingto me, and touchingto me in

Straub: There is one more thoughtabout this. EverythingJohnsaid is very

Crowley: Yes, right

Straub: Leading to myearliercommentsabout grief.. . The otherthingthatI

Crowley: A lot of missingwords

Straub: A lot of missingwords because thepapers are all brokenand shred-

60 Journal of the Fantastic

theyare always contentious,and some persuasive voices: some persuasive,

Crowley: I thinkthereis no questionthat.... I see exactlywhatyou mean and

Crowley: We should give these guys a chance. . . .