The Cloud of Unknowing

Today I happened to peruse John Ralston Saul's book "Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason" at work during a 15 minute break. I had been aware of this book for the longest time as I had often sold it at work. However, it was not until I read an online essay citing it, concerning the Middle English poems Pearl and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight that I came to realize its importance. I have only read a few pages, but I am already convinced that John Ralstron Saul's books/theories will help me understand the significance of mysticism, or at least see things in a new light. Specifically, I found his argument interesting concerning Aquinas and Scholasticism--how he argues that the modern state of scholarly, political and business circumlocution or rhetoric is indebted to this 12th/13th century school of thought. It is fascinating partly because the most prolific period of mysticism (to my amateur knowledge)--the fourteenth century--is nigh after the 'birth' of Scholasticism. I wondered if it were a stretch to claim that mysticism is somewhat 'counter-cultural'. Perhaps I will investigate next whether or not most mystics were initially 'rebels' in terms of their ideas (Richard Rolle, for example, was an inspiration for the Lollards), but were later co-oped into the ecclesiastical bureaucracy as 'saintly' figures. The theory is plausible, as I do remember reading somewhere in the McGill professor, David Williams's informative book "Deformed Discourse: The Function of the Monster in Mediaeval Thought and Literature" that Aquinas had to adopt, parody with inversion, then refute the 'negative theology' of Augustine and Pseudo-Dionysius to raise up Scholasticism. Once again, it reminds one of Bloom's Oedipal anxiety. Artists/thinkers always seem to need to first circumvent then eliminate their predecessors in order to pave a new way of thinking. It almost seems to be a finite, or scientific law of (human) nature, that every new generation must first overcome the burden of its forefathers to make 'space' for themselves.

To get back to the point, I find this relevant for if society keeps harkening to the past as both an source of knowledge and/or utopian ideal, is mysticism slated for a revival, or rebirth? It's a hair-brained notion, as far as I am concerned.

So if Scholasticism is one of the roots of our modern state, how does this help us understand the fourteenth century and/or mysticism? I see this sort of revival happening with China Mieville and "The New Weird" (either google it, or read the article in the December 2003 issue of Locus--Issue 515, Vol.51, No.6). It's fascinating, at least to me. Maybe I'm mad like Don Quixote, not seeing 'reality' and tilting with windmills. Mieville is the new Oedipus for 'fantasy' literature--somewhere in an article or interview he states (probably Middle Earth Meets Middle England) that he wants to harken back to the idea of 'fantasy and its creatures' being about the 'monstrous' (see David Williams's book mentioned above), not the cute, escapist, cliche, racist sort of fairy-tale of Tolkien (his argument not mine!), and modern 'fantasty' novels. Call it serendipity, but I happened to read Williams's book before I started reading Mieville (for starters, I recommend his first novel 'King Rat' then the short story 'The Tain' before taking on his New Crobuzon anti-trilogy of "Perdido Street Station", "The Scar", and "The Iron Council"). Sometimes it feels like Bloom is haunting us, almost inescapable because everything about Mieville resonates with Bloom's psychoanalytical Oedipal anxiety theory (or should I be crediting Freud?). Anti-trilogy, diatribe against 50s 'Christian' fantasy (as Mieville characterises it), Marxism (vs. Tolkien's Catholicism), the comparisons are endless. Interesting how at the height of Tolkien's success and fantasty in general--paralleling Scholasticism--dissent is lurking out upon the fringes--with mysticism outside of the 'official' church--with "New Wave" or "New Weird" fantasty novelists revolting against it. These "New Weird" authours are intentionally messing with the Tolkienesque 'category' of 'fantasy', which is great--it's opening up so much possiblity for the genre.

I think this runs much deeper than Mieville, but there is something distinctly British about this movement. Neil Gaiman, China Mieville, Michael Moorcock, Susanna Clarke, and yes, J.K. Rowling, to name a few. It seems 'magic' and the 'grotesque' are becoming prominent themes and/or tropes in modern fiction, if not making a downright comeback. The roots of this movement, as I understand are believed to derive from Surrealism and Magic Realism (as well as the Celtic medieval folklore--Just think of the Pearl-poet's works, which also possess a certain subversive quality to them (in terms of translating the sacred scriptures into vernacular Middle English like the Lollards), at least for their time. Yes, I am willing to lay my neck on the line for this belief, like Gawain.

Which brings me to my final question: If I go to Graduate School, what should I write about, mysticism, The New Weird, or both as literary phenomenas?